Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context With a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek

JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

ARBEITEN ZUR GESCHICHTE DES ANTIKEN JUDENTUMS UND DES URCHRISTENTUMS HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

Martin H e n g e l (Tübingen), Peter Schäfer (Berlin), Pieter W . van der Horst (Utrecht), Martin G o o d m a n (Oxford), D a n i e l R. Schwartz (Jerusalem), Cilliers Breytenbach (Berlin)

XXXIV

JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek

E D I T E D BY

L O U I S H. F E L D M A N AND

J O H N R. L E V I S O N

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • N E W Y O R K • K Ö L N 1996

T h e p a p e r i n t h i s b o o k m e e t s t h e g u i d e l i n e s for p e r m a n e n c e a n d d u r a b i l i t y of t h e C o m m i t t e e o n P r o d u c t i o n G u i d e l i n e s for B o o k L o n g e v i t y of t h e C o u n c i l o n L i b r a r y Resources.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme J o s e p h u s ' C o n t r a A p i o n e m : studies in its c h a r a c t e r a n d c o n t e x t w i t h a L a t i n c o n c o r d a n c e t o t h e p o r t i o n missing in G r e e k / e d . b y L o u i s H . F e l d m a n a n d J o h n R . Levison. L e i d e n ; N e w Y o r k ; K ö l n : Brill, 1996 (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums ; 34) ISBN 9 0 - 0 4 - 1 0 3 2 5 - 2 NE: Feldman, Louis H. [Hrsg.]; G T

L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a is also available.

ISSN ISBN

0169-734X 90 04 10325 2

© Copyright 1996 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

To

Marianne and Martin Hengel

CONTENTS

Preface J O H N R.

ix LEVISON and J . R o s s W A G N E R

Introduction: T h e Character and Context of Josephus' Contra Apionem HEINZ

1

SCHRECKENBERG

Text, Überlieferung und Textkritik von Contra Apionem PlETER W.

49

VAN DER H O R S T

The Distinctive Vocabulary of Contra Apionem

83

PER BILDE

Contra Apionem 1.28-56: Josephus' View of His O w n Work in the Context of the Jewish Canon ARTHUR J.

94

DROGE

Josephus Between Greeks and Barbarians

115

A R Y E H KASHER

Polemic and Apologetic Methods of Writing in Contra Apionem

143

STEVE M A S O N

The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: An Invitation to Judean Philosophy ROBERT G.

187

HALL

Josephus' Contra Apionem and Historical Inquiry in the R o m a n Rhetorical Schools

229

Louis H. FELDMAN

Reading Between the Lines: Appreciation of Judaism in Anti-Jewish Writers Cited in Contra Apionem JAN-WILLEM VAN H E N T E N and

RA'ANAN

250

ABUSGH

The Jews as Typhonians and Josephus' Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem 271

viii

CONTENTS

BEZALEL B A R - K O C H V A

A n Ass in the Jerusalem T e m p l e — T h e Origins and Development of the Slander

310

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

Josephus' Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102-109

327

PAUL SPILSBURY

Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact

348

MICHAEL HARDWICK

Contra Apionem and Christian Apologetics

369

Abbreviations Index of Josephus Writings Contra Apionem Antiquities Vita Bellum Judaicum Index of Passages from Ancient Writers Index of Passages from Ancient Authors (Exclusive of Josephus) Index of Ancient N a m e s Subject Index Index of Modern Authors

403 409 409 416 419 420 421

5

424 434 438 445

H E I N Z SCHRECKENBERG

A Concordance to the Latin Text of Contra Apionem 2.52-113

453

PREFACE

During the summer of 1992, Louis H. Feldman directed a splendid Seminar for College Teachers at Yeshiva University in N e w York City on the topic, "The Greek Encounter With Judaism in the Hel­ lenistic Era," which was funded generously by the National Endow­ ment for the Humanities. Although the stimulating insights culled from that seminar could easily fill another book, the present volume originated in a less auspicious moment, in one of Louis' offhanded, casual asides. I crammed into the corner of a notebook his comment that the completing of the concordance to Josephus' writings, so as to include the Latin portion of Contra Apionem, was discussed as a desideratum at the colloquium on Josephus held at San Miniato, Italy, in 1992, the proceedings of which were published in 1994 by Brill (Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, ed., Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith). Although at the time of this seminar I had no inkling of when it would be feasible to orchestrate such a project, in the autumn of the same year I received the very good news that the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation had offered me a fellowship to spend the 1 9 9 3 94 academic year in Tubingen, Germany. Toward the beginning of this unexpected period of research at the Institut fur antikes Judentum und hellenistische Religionsgeschichte of the Eberhard-KarlsUniversitat Tubingen, I began to envisage the production of this concordance. Encouraging conversations and correspondence during the ensuing months in Tubingen led me to envisage a volume con­ taining a Latin concordance accompanied by articles intended to facilitate further research into Contra Apionem. Louis Feldman agreed to edit the volume with me and supplied numerous names of poten­ tial contributors; Martin Hengel deemed the volume a worthy project and took the initiative to ensure its publication in Brill's A G A J U Series; David Orton of E. J. Brill Publishers assured me that he expected to publish this volume "effectively and enthusiastically." Since the first step of this process was to ensure that the editors of A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus would be pleased with this development, I wrote to Professor Heinz Schreckenberg, w h o re­ sponded immediately and positively to the idea. What transpired next,

X

PREFACE

however, transformed this volume overnight from vision to reality. Professor Schreckenberg informed me that he had already produced this concordance, but that, for reasons of which he was not alto­ gether certain, it had not been published during the years after K. H. Rengstorf's death. H e then posted the concordance to me, magnanimously instructing me to do with it what I wished "ohne jede Bedingung" except to allow him to read the proofs to ensure accuracy! With Professor Schreckenberg's concordance in hand, Louis and I gathered easily the coterie of scholars represented in this volume. Pieter van der Horst recommended additional articles as well which were initially read as papers at meetings of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Although editing is arduous work, the opportunity this task has afforded for conversations with scholars from many nations has proven satisfying and sufficient compensation. There has been as well the additional reward, during the last month, of receiving undue kind­ ness from others. J o a n Lamorte, Assistant to the Faculty of Duke Divinity School, plunged with alacrity into proofing articles and compiling the index to Josephus' writings. I am startled by how evi­ dently J o a n conjoins a wonderfully warm spirit with remarkable effi­ ciency. Kindness emerged as well from another corner of my world. Priscilla Pope-Levison, although amply occupied as a member of the Duke Divinity School faculty, as my wife, and as the mother of our young children, Chloe and Jeremy, miraculously wrung precious hours from her schedule to labor by my side. It is an indication of her character that she would, during an intense moment in the final days, offer me "a romantic evening of indexing"—if I would supply the ice cream. T h e n , of course, this book has permitted me for several years the deeply gratifying and extraordinary privilege of working so carefully and companionably with Louis Feldman, my mentor and colleague. I shall miss the many occasions this joint effort has pro­ vided to speak with Louis, although the strength of our friendship ought to provide grounds enough for other such occasions in the days to come. J o h n R. Levison Durham, N C 14 October, 1996

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF J O S E P H U S ' CONTRA APIONEM JOHN R. LEVISON, T h e Divinity School, Duke University J. Ross WAGNER, Duke University

Introduction The final literary production of Josephus' arguably well-spent life, de­ spite his dubious decision to capitulate to R o m e during the Jewish War of 6 6 - 7 3 C E , is, as H. St. J. Thackeray ventured, "the most attractive of our author's works; exhibiting a well designed plan, great literary skill, an intimate acquaintance with Greek philosophy and poetry, together with a sincere and impassioned zeal for his country's religion." T h e present volume is a tribute to the tireless energy of Josephus who, in his waning years, could capably wrest from his lit­ erary cache yet one more treatise in defense and praise of the Jewish people. Because a reader of the Contra Apionem can easily become entangled in the morass of ancient authors w h o populate its pages, confused by the to and fro of citation and refutation, and unnerved by the alter­ nation between invective and adulation, this introductory article is intended to serve as a companionable guide by providing overviews of: (1) Contra Apionem itself; (2) the articles in this volume; (3) modern scholarship concerned with Contra Apionem. Its intent is usefulness and clarity for any who, like Epaphroditus, to w h o m Josephus dedicated these books, "wish to know the facts about our [Jewish] race" (Contra Apionem 2.296). 1

An overview of Contra Apionem is presented on the following pages.

1

Josephus: The Life; Against Apion, L C L 186, xvi.

2

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER BOOK

I.

I

1 . 1 - 5 : Contra Apionem a s a S e q u e l t o t h e Antiquities A . 1 . 1 - 2 : P r e c i s o f t h e Antiquities • Its t h e s e s • "the antiquity of o u r J e w i s h r a c e " • "the purity of the original stock" • " t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h it [ t h e J e w i s h r a c e ] e s t a b l i s h e d itself i n the country which we occupy to-day" • Its p a r a m e t e r s • " a p e r i o d o f five t h o u s a n d y e a r s " • "in Greek" • " o n t h e basis of o u r sacred b o o k s " • Its " c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r o f " d e t r a c t o r s w h o a r e " i n f l u e n c e d b y the malicious calumnies of certain individuals" w h o • d i s c r e d i t its s t a t e m e n t s " c o n c e r n i n g o u r a n t i q u i t y " • a d d u c e a s p r o o f " t h e fact t h a t it [ o u r r a c e ] h a s n o t b e e n t h o u g h t w o r t h y of m e n t i o n b y the best k n o w n G r e e k historians" B . 1 . 3 - 5 : " . . . m y d u t y t o d e v o t e a b r i e f t r e a t i s e t o all t h e s e p o i n t s " • P u r p o s e o f Contra Apionem: first s t a t e m e n t • "to convict o u r detractors of malignity a n d deliberate falsehood" • "to correct the ignorance of others" • " t o i n s t r u c t all w h o d e s i r e t o k n o w t h e t r u t h c o n c e r n i n g t h e antiquity of o u r race" • Its p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e w i t n e s s e s • "writers w h o , in the estimation of t h e Greeks, are the m o s t trust­ w o r t h y authorities o n a n t i q u i t y as a w h o l e " • " T h e a u t h o r s of scurrilous a n d m e n d a c i o u s statements a b o u t us will b e s h o w n t o b e c o n f u t e d b y t h e m s e l v e s " • P u r p o s e o f Contra Apionem: s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t • t o " e x p l a i n w h y o u r n a t i o n is m e n t i o n e d b y o n l y a few o f t h e Greek historians" • to " b r i n g those authors w h o h a v e not neglected o u r history to t h e n o t i c e o f a n y w h o e i t h e r a r e , o r feign t o b e , i g n o r a n t o f them" II. 1.6-56: T h e Superiority of N o n - G r e e k Historiography A. 1.6-18: T h e Greeks provide unreliable historical knowledge B. 1.19-27: Reasons w h y the Greeks are unreliable • 1 . 1 9 - 2 2 : T h e i r failure to k e e p r e c o r d s of c u r r e n t events • 1.23-27: T h e i r c o n c e r n n o t with t r u t h b u t r a t h e r with display of their literary ability G. 1.28-29: T h e J e w s provide reliable historical knowledge D . 1.30-43: R e a s o n s w h y the J e w s a r e reliable • 1.30-36: Priests a r e custodians of J e w i s h records • 1.37-43: P r o p h e t s a r e g u a r a n t o r s of t h e a c c u r a c y of the 22 biblical books E . 1 . 4 4 - 5 6 : A d i g r e s s i o n o n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' Jewish War • Unreliable G r e e k ancient histories a n d accounts of the W a r • J o s e p h u s ' r e l i a b l e a c c o u n t o f t h e W a r ; h i s a u t h o r s h i p o f Jewish War w i t h t h e a i d o f a s s i s t a n t s for t h e s a k e o f t h e G r e e k (1.50) III. 1.57-218: Testimonies to the Antiquity of the J e w s A. 1.57-59: R e s t a t e m e n t of p u r p o s e

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

3

B . 1 . 6 0 - 6 8 : T h e s i l e n c e o f G r e e k h i s t o r i a n s is n o p r o o f o f t h e l a t e o r i g i n o f the Jews C . 1.69-218: Non-Jewish histories attest to J e w i s h antiquity • 1 . 6 9 - 7 3 : E v i d e n c e o f J e w i s h a n t i q u i t y will b e c i t e d f r o m E g y p t i a n , Phoenician, and Greek authors • 1.73-105: T h e Egyptian M a n e t h o • 1.106-127: T h e Phoenicians • 1.106-111: Evidence from Tyrian public records • 1.112-115: Dius on Solomon's riddles • 1.116-126: M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s o n K i n g H i r a m a n d his suc­ cessors • 1.126-127: C h r o n o l o g y of this p e r i o d • 1.128—160: T h e C h a l d e a n B e r o s s u s , w h o s e c h r o n o l o g y for t h e r e i g n of N e b u c h a d n e z z a r m a t c h e s t h e P h o e n i c i a n a n d J e w i s h r e c o r d s (1.154-160) D . 1.161-218: G r e e k histories also attest to J e w i s h antiquity • 1.161: I n t r o d u c t i o n • 1.162-165: H e r m i p p u s o n Pythagoras' appropriation of J e w i s h law and philosophy • 1.166-167: T h e o p h r a s t u s o n the oath of c o r b a n which the J e w s alone espouse • 1.168-171: H e r o d o t u s o n the circumcision of the Palestinian Syr­ ians, w h i c h J o s e p h u s i n t e r p r e t s as a n allusion t o t h e J e w s • 1.172-175a: Choerilus o n the J e w s ' role in the expedition of X e r x e s of Persia against G r e e c e • 1.175b-182: Aristotle, a c c o r d i n g to Clearchus, o n the J e w i s h p h i ­ losopher of Coele-Syria w h o " h a d the soul of a G r e e k " • 1.183-204: H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a o n • 1.183-185: Jewish existence u n d e r the Ptolemies a n d Alexander • 1.186-189: Jewish emigration to Alexandria • 1.190-193: J e w i s h obstinacy in defense of their laws • 1.194: T h e v a s t n e s s o f t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n • 1.195: T h e e x t e n t a n d b e a u t y o f J u d a e a • 1.196-199: Jerusalem a n d the temple • 1.200-204: M o s o l l a m u s , the J e w i s h archer, to illustrate J e w i s h i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e c a m p a i g n s of A l e x a n d e r a n d his successors • 1.204-212: Agatharchides o n Jewish observance of the sabbath • 1.213-214: Deliberate omission of the J e w s d u e to envy a n d o t h e r i n f e r i o r m o t i v e s , e.g., H i e r o n y m o u s • 1 . 2 1 5 - 2 1 8 : O t h e r s w h o testify t o J e w i s h a n t i q u i t y IV. 1.219-320: Libels Against the J e w s A . 1 . 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 : O t h e r p e o p l e s h a v e a l s o b e e n s u b j e c t e d t o libels B . 1 . 2 2 3 - 3 2 0 : E g y p t i a n libels c o n c e r n i n g t h e E x o d u s a r e a b s u r d • 1.223-226: R e a s o n s for t h e h a t r e d a n d e n v y of t h e J e w s b y t h e Egyptians • 1.227-287: M a n e t h o ' s version • 1.227-253: T h e J e w s were mixed with Egyptian lepers • 1.254-287: J o s e p h u s rebuts M a n e t h o ' s version • 1.288-292: C h a e r e m o n ' s version C. 1.292-303: Discrepancies between M a n e t h o a n d C h a e r e m o n • 1.304—320: L y s i m a c h u s ' v e r s i o n • 1.304-311: Lysimachus' version • 1.312-320: Josephus rebuts Lysimachus' version

4

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER BOOK

II

I. 2 . 1 - 7 : I n t r o d u c t i o n A . 2 . 1 : G e n e r a l p u r p o s e : " t o refute t h e rest of t h e a u t h o r s w h o h a v e a t t a c k e d us" B . 2 . 2 - 7 : Specific p u r p o s e : t o refute A p i o n ' s libels c o n c e r n i n g • T h e Exodus • T h e Alexandrian Jews • The Temple II. 2 . 8 - 1 4 4 : T h e Libels of A p i o n & J o s e p h u s ' R e f u t a t i o n s A. 2.8-32: T h e Exodus • 2 . 8 - 1 4 : T h a t M o s e s built p r a y e r - h o u s e s facing e a s t w a r d with g r a v e n images • 2 . 1 5 - 1 9 : T h a t t h e E x o d u s t o o k place as late as t h e founding of C a r t h a g e • 2 . 2 0 - 2 7 : T h a t t h e s a b b a t h rest o r i g i n a t e d d u e t o a disease of t h e groin (for w h i c h t h e E g y p t i a n w o r d is sabbo) • 2 . 2 8 - 3 2 : T h a t t h e J e w s w e r e originally E g y p t i a n s B. 2 . 3 3 - 7 8 : T h e A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s • 2 . 3 3 - 3 4 : T h a t t h e locale of t h e J e w i s h Q u a r t e r is inferior • 2 . 3 5 - 5 6 a : T h a t t h e J e w s falsely claim A l e x a n d r i a n citizenship • 2 . 3 5 - 4 2 a : A p i o n ' s libel • 2.42b~56a: J o s e p h u s ' response • 2 . 4 2 b ~ 4 3 : Privileges b e s t o w e d o n t h e J e w s b y A l e x a n d e r • 2 . 4 4 - 4 8 : Privileges b e s t o w e d o n t h e J e w s b y t h e Ptolemies • 2 . 4 9 - 5 2 : T h e success of J e w i s h g e n e r a l s , O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e u s , during the Ptolemaic period • 2 . 5 3 - 5 6 a : T h e a t t e m p t e d p e r s e c u t i o n of t h e J e w s of A l e x a n d r i a b y P t o l e m y P h y s c o n a n d its failure • 2 . 5 6 b - 6 5 : T h a t t h e J e w s a r e to b l a m e for C l e o p a t r a ' s m i s t r e a t m e n t of them • 2 . 5 6 b - 6 5 : A p i o n ' s libel • 2 . 6 1 - 6 5 : J o s e p h u s ' r e s p o n s e : privileges b e s t o w e d o n t h e J e w s of Alex­ andria by R o m a n emperors • 2 . 6 5 - 6 7 : T h a t t h e J e w s w r o n g l y c l a i m A l e x a n d r i a n citizenship while refusing t o w o r s h i p E g y p t i a n g o d s • 2.68-72: T h a t the J e w s cause disturbances • 2 . 6 8 : A p i o n ' s libel • 2 . 6 9 - 7 2 : J o s e p h u s ' r e s p o n s e : It is t h e E g y p t i a n s w h o c a u s e dis­ turbances • 2 . 7 3 - 7 7 : T h a t t h e J e w s refuse t o e r e c t statues t o h o n o r e m p e r o r s • 2.78: Conclusion C . 2 . 7 9 - 1 2 0 : A p i o n ' s libels c o n c e r n i n g t h e t e m p l e • 2 . 7 9 : C r i t i q u e of A p i o n ' s s o u r c e s , P o s i d o n i u s & A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n • 2 . 8 0 - 8 8 : T h a t t h e J e w s w o r s h i p a n ass's h e a d in t h e t e m p l e • 2 . 8 9 - 1 1 1 : T h a t t h e J e w s k i d n a p a G r e e k , fatten h i m u p for a y e a r , a n d t h e n m u r d e r h i m while s w e a r i n g a n o a t h of hostility to t h e G r e e k s • 2 . 1 1 2 - 1 2 0 : T h a t a n I d u m e a n , Z a b i d u s , stole a g o l d e n ass's h e a d from the temple D . 2 . 1 2 1 - 1 2 4 : T h a t t h e J e w s s w e a r t o s h o w n o goodwill t o aliens, especially Greeks E . 2 . 1 2 5 - 1 3 4 : T h a t J e w i s h m i s f o r t u n e s a r e e v i d e n c e of t h e injustice of J e w i s h laws a n d t h e e r r o r of J e w i s h religious c e r e m o n i e s F . 2 . 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 : T h a t t h e J e w s h a v e n o t p r o d u c e d i n v e n t o r s o r sages G . 2 . 1 3 7 - 1 4 2 : T h a t abstention from p o r k a n d circumcision a r e t o b e c o n d e m n e d H . 2 . 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 : J o s e p h u s ' c o n c l u d i n g c o m m e n t o n A p i o n ' s life a n d d e a t h • 2 . 1 4 3 : H e d i e d f r o m a n infection d u e t o n e c e s s a r y circumcision • 2 . 1 4 4 : H e failed to o b e y his c o u n t r y ' s laws

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

5

III. 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 1 9 : R e f u t a t i o n T h r o u g h P r a i s e of t h e J e w i s h C o n s t i t u t i o n A. 2 . 1 4 5 - 1 5 0 : I n t r o d u c t i o n : " . . . a b r i e f a c c o u n t of o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n . . . t h e laws w h i c h g o v e r n o u r daily life" in o r d e r t o refute t h e a c c u s a t i o n s of o t h e r critics (e.g., a t h e i s m a n d m i s a n t h r o p y ) B. 2 . 1 5 1 - 1 5 3 : Praise of t h e rule of l a w C . 2 . 1 5 4 - 1 5 6 : M o s e s t h e m o s t a n c i e n t lawgiver D . 2 . 1 5 7 - 1 6 3 : M o s e s a sagacious a n d skillful l e a d e r E. 2 . 1 6 4 - 1 8 9 : J e w i s h laws • 2 . 1 6 4 - 1 6 7 : Israel is a t h e o c r a c y • 2 . 1 6 8 - 1 7 4 : G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s i m p a r t similar c o n c e p t i o n s of G o d t o t h e few, b u t all J e w s p r a c t i s e t h e p r e c e p t s of t h e i r laws • 2 . 1 7 5 - 1 7 8 : M o s e s p r o v i d e d for assemblies t o t e a c h t h e l a w • 2 . 1 7 9 - 1 8 3 : J e w i s h h a r m o n y arises f r o m u n i t y of belief, p r a c t i c e s , & customs • 2 . 1 8 4 - 1 8 9 : Israel is g o v e r n e d b y G o d , t h e h i g h priests, a n d priests F. 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 3 : A c a t a l o g u e of specific laws • 2 . 1 9 0 - 1 9 2 : T h e first c o m m a n d m e n t a n d t h e n a t u r e of G o d • 2 . 1 9 3 - 1 9 8 : T e m p l e , priests, sacrifices • 2.199-203: Marriage • 2.204: E d u c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n • 2.205: Funerals • 2 . 2 0 6 - 2 0 8 : T h e c o m m a n d t o h o n o r p a r e n t s a n d m i s c e l l a n e o u s laws (e.g., p r o h i b i t i o n of b r i b e s a n d interest) • 2 . 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 : F a i r t r e a t m e n t of aliens • 2 . 2 1 1 - 2 1 4 : K i n d n e s s t o w a r d all, e v e n e n e m i e s & a n i m a l s G . 2 . 2 1 5 - 2 1 9 : Penalties for offenses a g a i n s t laws a n d r e w a r d s in future life for o b e d i e n c e t o laws IV. 2.220-286: T h e J e w s C o m p a r e d with O t h e r Peoples A. 2 . 2 2 0 - 2 2 4 : J e w s p r a c t i s e w h a t G r e e k s c o n s i d e r u n a t t a i n a b l e ideals B. 2 . 2 2 5 - 2 3 5 : A l t h o u g h S p a r t a n s w e r e n o t faithful to t h e i r laws w h e n t h e y m e t w i t h reverses of f o r t u n e , t h e J e w s a r e h e r o i c a l l y faithful t o t h e i r laws e v e n in d i r e e x t r e m i t i e s C . 2 . 2 3 6 - 2 4 9 : G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s of t h e g o d s a r e e r r o n e o u s (e.g., w a r r i n g ; a d u l t e r o u s ; in service t o h u m a n k i n d ) D . 2 . 2 5 0 - 2 5 4 : C a u s e of these e r r o r s : neglect b y legislators a n d license given t o p o e t s a n d artists E . 2 . 2 5 5 - 2 7 0 : R e f u t a t i o n of t h e c h a r g e of m i s a n t h r o p y : o t h e r n a t i o n s e x h i b i t zealous c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e i r laws, c u s t o m s , a n d g o d s • 2 . 2 5 5 - 2 5 8 : Plato's precautions against r a n d o m mixing with foreigners • 2 . 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 : S p a r t a n s ' resistance to foreign influence • 2 . 2 6 2 - 2 6 8 : A t h e n i a n s ' p r o s e c u t i o n of t h o s e w h o o p p o s e d t h e i r c o n c e p ­ tion of t h e g o d s (e.g., S o c r a t e s , A n a x a g o r a s , D i a g o r a s , P r o t a g o r a s ) • 2 . 2 6 9 : S c y t h i a n s ' o p p o s i t i o n to G r e e k influence • 2.270: Persians' intolerance of o t h e r s ' beliefs; destruction of G r e e k temples F. 2 . 2 7 1 - 2 7 8 : O t h e r p e o p l e s (e.g., S p a r t a n s ) violate t h e i r o w n laws, b u t J e w s p r i z e t h e i r o w n laws G . 2 . 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 : T i m e l e s s n e s s of J e w i s h laws H . 2 . 2 8 1 - 2 8 6 : N o n - J e w s , b o t h p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d t h e masses, h a v e i m i t a t e d J e w i s h laws V . 2 . 2 8 7 - 2 9 6 : R e c a p i t u l a t i o n : t h e O r i g i n a l P r o m i s e in W r i t i n g T h i s W o r k Fulfilled A. 2 . 2 8 7 : A u t h o r s w h o h a v e m a l i g n e d t h e J e w s h a v e a t t a c k e d t h e t r u t h B. 2 . 2 8 8 : T h e J e w s t r a c e t h e i r origins to a n t i q u i t y C . 2 . 2 8 9 a : T h e J e w s d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e in E g y p t D . 2 . 2 8 9 b : T h e J e w s w e r e n o t expelled from E g y p t b u t left of t h e i r o w n a c c o r d E. 2 . 2 9 0 : M o s e s w a s a p e r s o n of sterling m e r i t s F. 2 . 2 9 1 - 2 9 5 : J e w i s h laws h a v e h a d beneficial, u n i v e r s a l i m p a c t G . 2 . 2 9 6 : Final d e d i c a t i o n of Contra Apionem t o E p a p h r o d i t u s

6

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

Overview of this volume T h e anchor of the present volume is, of course, Heinz Schrecken­ berg's Latin concordance to CA 2 . 5 2 - 1 1 3 , which completes the con­ cordance project that was directed by K. H. Rengstorf (A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus; 4 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1973-83), in which Professor Schreckenberg himself took part. Tethered to this anchor is a collection of articles which analyze various aspects of Contra Apionem. These articles do not comprise merely a miscellaneous mélange; they are intended rather to encompass essential aspects of this remarkable and relatively neglected first century Jewish tract: • • • • •

textual history and relation to later Christian literature; literary style; sources; rhetorical strategies and purpose; Contra Apionem and Josephus.

Textual history and relation to later Christian literature T h e rationale for combining textual history with Christian literature is apparent in Heinz Schreckenberg's opinion that "The qualitatively most important textual witnesses are the very many excerpts of Eusebius (and after him, at quite a distance, other testimonies of the church fathers)" (78; translation ours). Thus, Schreckenberg's detailed discussion of the textual history of Contra Apionem and Michael Hardwick's analysis of "the extent to which Contra Apionem would become the model for Christian apologetics by the time of Eusebius" (370) complement one another admirably. Both authors discuss the after­ life of Contra Apionem in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. Schreckenberg discusses as well Tatian, Hippolytus, Hieronymous, Procopios of Gaza, and Kosmas Indikopleustes, (66-70), while Hardwick includes Pseudo-Justin in his analysis of Christian authors. Hardwick's article concludes with a serviceable index of passages from Contra Apionem discernible in early Christian literature. Schreckenberg's article addresses other related aspects of the tex­ tual history of Contra Apionem, including: • the confusion concerning the various titles of Josephus' works ( 4 9 - 5 0 , 75-77);

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

1

• Greek manuscripts (the most reliable of which is Laurentianus 69, 22) (62-63); • the editio princeps of the Greek text of 1544 (63-64); • the sixth century Latin translation commissioned by Cassiodorus (64-65); • possible references and allusions in non-Christian authors: Taci­ tus, Plutarch, Porphyry, Georgios Monachos, and Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos (65-66, 68, 70-71); • the scholarly tradition of Latin and Greek texts (of B. Niese, S. A. Naber, H. St. J. Thackeray, et al.) (72-75) As Schreckenberg's article demonstrates, there exists to date no suffi­ ciently reliable critical edition of Josephus' Contra Apionem. His and Hardwick's articles constitute a step in this direction, although both authors are quick to recognize the difficulties this enterprise would entail.

Literary style The above outline of Contra Apionem granted the opportunity to ob­ serve what Thackeray aptly described as "a well designed plan." Thackeray noticed as well the "great literary skill" displayed in Contra Apionem. While Schreckenberg points out briefly Josephus' use of atticized koine Greek and other stylistic elements (52-54), particularly in light of their significance for a text-critical assessment of Contra Apionem, it is the article by Aryeh Kasher which contains a thor­ ough analysis of literary style. Kasher discusses in particular Josephus' use of: • Brief, concise writing, perhaps to conceal his limited knowledge; • The mixture of the first person singular ("I") and plural ("we") pronouns to underscore the relationship between author and reader and to indicate that the issues discussed in Contra Apionem are of general public interest; • External historical sources (see below on sources); • Citation or paraphrase of accusations against the Jews and refu­ tation of them by means such as exposure of internal contradic­ tions or inconsistencies between various versions; • Axiomatic statements requiring no evidence, such as "the facts are universally admitted" in CA 1.28; • Logical formulae, particularly to invert an alleged datum, e.g.,

8

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

•

• • •

•

•

•

• •

"In my view, the very reverse of this is the case, that is to say, we are not to take idle prejudices as our guide, but to extract the truth from the facts themselves" (CA 1.6); Structured, balanced models of comparison, such as when he compared the unreliability of the historiography of the Greeks with the reliable historiography of the Eastern peoples (CA 1.812), or when he reported the versions of Manetho and Chaerem o n on the libel concerning the Jews as lepers in order to point out their inconsistencies (CA 1.232-302); T h e model of legal debate; Dialectic and dialectical syllogism, particularly to expose contra­ dictions in his opponents' arguments (e.g., CA 1.19); Rhetorical questions no less than forty times in book one and fifty in book two in order to neutralize readers' objections by injecting an arrogant, mocking tone, and to arouse curiosity. By employing rhetorical questions in a series, such as the twelve questions in CA 1.254—259, Josephus achieved a cumulative effect intended to undermine readers' resistance; A ranking system, such as when Josephus observed that not only the lesser Greek states failed to keep official records but also the Athenians (i.e., a higher Greek state) (CA 1.20-22), or when he claimed that the admirers of the Jews included not only the lowest class of Greeks but also the wisest, including Clearchus (CA 1.175-176); Explicit citation either to support his thesis or to refute his oppo­ nent's thesis by means of a citation of a well known person. Josephus tended not to leave these citations untouched but ex­ plained and evaluated them; Chronological accuracy in terms of olympiads, years, months, and days in order to buttress the integrity of his historical ac­ counts (e.g., CA 1.69-74); Cumulative effect, particularly in his reviews of the favors granted by various rulers to the Jews (e.g, CA 2.39, 4 2 - 6 2 ) . Summaries throughout in order to focus the reader's attention (e.g., CA 1.216-222).

While Kasher amply catalogues Josephus' literary techniques, Pieter van der Horst provides an exhaustive list of Greek words which occur, a m o n g Josephus' writings, only in Contra Apionem. V a n der Horst re­ frains from drawing specific inferences from this list about Josephus' literary style and apologetic interests, preferring instead to proffer a

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

9

prolegomenon to a study of Josephus' diction in Contra Apionem. N o n e ­ theless, he illustrates the potential significance of this list by means of similar linguistic phenomena. For example, the occurrence of the word, dpxaioiTiq, thirteen times in Contra Apionem but only four times in the Jewish War and Antiquities, taken together, indicates how crucial the issue of Jewish antiquity is in Contra Apionem. T h e articles of Schreckenberg, Kasher, and van der Horst, therefore, provide a substantial basis for further studies on the literary style and diction of Josephus' Contra Apionem. The Latin concordance produced by Heinz Schreckenberg will undoubtedly prove significant for scholars interested in the language and style of Cassiodorus, his school, and his sixth-century contempo­ raries, since the Latin translation of CA 2 . 5 2 - 1 1 3 reflects the Latinity of the school of Cassiodorus. Furthermore, this concordance will undoubtedly prove valuable for evaluating the debate about Josephus' literary style. This debate has already emerged in David S. Williams' contention that Robert James H. Shutt's retroversion of the Latin portion of Contra Apionem into Greek does not conform to the style of the Greek of the rest of Contra Apionem. 2

3

Sources of Contra Apionem H. St. J. Thackeray concludes the brief introduction to his transla­ tion of Contra Apionem with the evocative statement, "Numerous quo­ tations from lost writings give this work a special value." Naturally the concerns of several articles in the present volume coalesce around the question of the sources employed by Josephus in Contra Apionem. 4

Fundamental to this discussion is Schreckenberg's list of texts which Josephus cited or to which he alluded. For each author, Schreckenberg includes, whenever possible: • approximate dates of birth and death; • a brief description (e.g., geographer; family background);

2

Sfylometric Authorship Studies in Flavius Josephus and Related Literature (Lewiston: M e l l e n , 1992). " J o s e p h u s in L a t i n : A R e t r o v e r s i o n i n t o G r e e k a n d a n English T r a n s l a t i o n , " JSP 1 (1987) 7 9 - 9 3 . Josephus: The Life; Against Apion, xvi. 3

4

10

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

• passages in Contra Apionem in which Josephus referred to this author; • the most recent editions in which texts may be found (e.g., F. Jacoby's Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, H. Diels and W. Kranz's Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker; M. Stern's Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism); • bibliographical data of relevant scholarly discussions. Although this catalogue provides indispensable data from which to proceed, the articles in this volume reveal a wide variety of comple­ mentary approaches to these sources. V a n der Horst, for example, discusses these sources from the standpoint of diction. H e notes that of the some 240 words that occur only in Contra Apionem, seventyseven (or seventy-nine) appear in citations of other authors. J a n Willem van Henten and Ra'anan Abusch propose four criteria for isolating "mythological traditions which were highly evocative be­ cause of the powerful and pervasive negative associations they called forth" (272). T h e y illustrate these criteria with reference to the libels concerning the Egyptian origin of the Jewish people and the venera­ tion of an ass in the temple which, they contend, were linked to a mythic theme of a battle between the (Greco-)Egyptian royal god Horus and the evil god Seth-Typhon. This myth, which was current in Egypt to characterize ethnic strife, was applied to wars between Ptolemaic kings against indigenous Egyptian rebels. According to this myth, the Ptolemies were associated with the good god, Horus, while any evil foreigners w h o threatened Egypt were associated with SethT y p h o n (e.g., Persians; Greeks; probably Jews). T h e negative charac­ ter of specific libels against the Jews was undergirded and accentu­ ated by these mythological associations. T h e criteria which van Henten and Abusch propose for determin­ ing that a powerful propagandists mythological tradition has been incorporated into a later document include recognition of: • a remarkable detail which can only be understood against the background of a specific mythological tradition. E.g., in Manetho's discussions of the Egyptian origin of the Jews, the Jews, Hyksos, and impure Egyptians are associated with the city of Auaris. Manetho sets this detail into the context of the Seth-Typhon mythology: ". . . Auaris, and according to an ancient theological tradition dedicated to Typhon . . ." (CA 1.237). Readers aware of

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

11

this mythological tradition apprehend its negative associations. • a specific narrative sequence which is repeated in independent passages and therefore points to a specific traditional origin. E.g., the narrative sequence of a fragment of Manetho's History of Egypt (in CA 1.228-251) corresponds to the data in the anti-Jewish libel of Chaeremon (CA 1.288-292) and to an antiJewish Egyptian prophecy preserved on papyrus and dated to the end of the second or third century C E (CPJ 520 = PSI 8.982). Lying be­ hind these corresponding patterns is the Seth-Typhon tradition; the Jews can therefore be identified as Typhonians. • a detail which remains unclear in the present context when in­ terpreted on its own but which becomes illuminating when as­ sociated with a specific tradition. E.g., Josephus states (CA 1.300) that Ramesses, the son of Amenophis, "was born in a cave after his father's death, and subsequently defeated the Jews." This chronological detail appears to contradict Chaeremon's state­ ment earlier in CA 1.292, in which Ramesses was born before his father died. This allegedly confusing detail can be understood in the context of the conflict myth between Horus and SethTyphon, according to which Horus was born after the death of his father at the hands of Seth-Typhon and took up the fight against his antagonist when he was grown. • a cluster of motifs which may appear in several texts but which is at least once explicitly associated with the central figure of a specific tradition. E.g., with respect to the libel about the ven­ eration of an ass in the temple, Plutarch notes the occurrence of references to the Seth-Typhon tradition and the ass in connec­ tion with the Jews: "But those w h o relate that Typhon's flight from the battle [with Horus] was made on the back of an ass and lasted for seven days, and that after he had made his es­ cape, he became the father of sons, Hierosolymus and Judaeus, are manifestly, as the very names show, attempting to drag Jewish traditions into legend" (De hide et Osiride 31). The implementation of these criteria leads to the conclusion, according to van Henten and Abusch, that Josephus incorporated an independ­ ent mythological tradition which had powerful negative associations, namely, that the Jews as the worshippers of Seth-Typhon, the gods' enemy, were foreigners w h o needed to be expelled from Egypt in order to safeguard Egyptian or Greco-Egyptian society. Particular

12

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

libels, such as the association of the Jews with impure Egyptians or the veneration of an ass, therefore, are fortified by their setting in a widely attested negative mythological tradition. Bezalel Bar-Kochva also examines the relationship between the SethT y p h o n tradition and the veneration of an ass. Rather than concen­ trating upon the association of this mythological tradition with the ass libel within Contra Apionem, Bar-Kochva is concerned instead to reconstruct the origin and development of the ass libel prior to Josephus' inclusion of this tradition in Contra Apionem. Bar-Kochva bases his analysis upon several accounts: (1) one reported by Mnaseas of Patara and quoted by Apion (CA 2.112-114); (2) Apion's version, perhaps falsely attributed to Posidonius and Apollonius Molon (CA 2.79-80); (3) Diodorus' account of Antiochus IV Epiphanes' visit to the temple; and (4) Tacitus' description of the statue of an ass. From these accounts, Bar-Kochva discerns three versions of this libel: • a statue of Moses seated on a pack-ass is in the temple; • the statue of an ass, without Moses, is in the temple; • a golden ass head is in the temple. By observing subtle clues, Bar-Kochva discerns the presence of all three versions in Mnaseas' account: (1) the ass head is explicit; (2) the reference to "tearing away" presupposes a complete statue (so Elias Bickerman); (3) the reference to a "pack-ass" suggests the carry­ ing of a load, which would have been none other than Moses. T h e reconstruction of this libel is undertaken through a pastiche of methods. These can be illustrated with respect to the version which describes a statue of Moses' sitting on a pack-ass. This version, con­ tends Bar-Kochva, originated in Egypt because Diodorus' account of this statue contains both the Egyptian form of Moses' name, Moyses, and a description of the statue as stone, which in a hellenistic and northern version would consist of marble. The early date of this version Bar-Kochva extracts in part from the Septuagint translators' avoid­ ance, in the third century BCE, of associating Moses with an ass in Exodus 4:20 and Numbers 16:15. This libel had a long and complicated pre-history. Its earliest ver­ sion, which originated in Egypt, contained a statue of Moses seated on a pack-ass. By the third century BCE, Moses was dissociated from the pack-ass, which was identified with the Jewish god, in large measure because of the identification of the Jewish god with the evil god, Typhon, w h o was frequently described as having the form or

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

13

skin of an ass. T h e version of the ass-head arose, according to BarKochva, from a careless adaptation of the story by Mnaseas, in which the torn head was understood to mean that the ass head itself rep­ resented the Jewish god. Instead of focussing upon the pre-history and identification of Josephus' sources, Arthur Droge provides keen insight into the various ways—and extremes—by which Josephus transforms his sources. O n e of the foci of Droge's article is Josephus' claim that the Jews, by means of the Jewish law, had produced civilization on a universal scale. For this, Droge supposes, Josephus was dependent upon Hecataeus' conviction that civilization was diffused from Egypt to the rest of the world. In Josephus' version, however, Moses takes the place of Egypt and bears the burden of civilizing the world alone. He, and not his ancient Egyptian counterparts, is the first to discover the laws from which all civilization flowed (CA 2.279-80). O n e im­ petus for this alteration of Hecataeus' version is that, by the time Josephus penned Contra Apionem, in the wake of the civil strife be­ tween Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, Hecataeus' version of the expulsion from Egypt, which originally was quite positive about Moses and the Jews, had been rewritten to set the Jews in a particularly negative light; this is evident in the versions of Manetho, Lysimachus, Apion, and Chaeremon, which "were in fact an attack on the Hecataean model and indirectly on those Jewish apologists w h o had used it so effectively to their own advantage" (19-20). Consequently, Jose­ phus could not merely reiterate Hecataeus' version. His strategy vis-a-vis the Hecataean version constitutes, according to Droge, an extraordinary reversal: But Josephus was acutely aware that the authority a n d

explanatory

p o w e r of H e c a t a e u s ' a c c o u n t h a d suffered at t h e h a n d s of his Alex­ a n d r i a n c r i t i c s . I t is a m e a s u r e o f J o s e p h u s ' g r a s p o f t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t he sought to repair the m o d e l b y m a k i n g Israel assume the role

of

H e c a t a e a n Egypt. T h u s c a n h e say in the course of his refutation

of

Apion, "In their relation to us, Egyptians are swayed b y o n e of two f e e l i n g s : e i t h e r they pretend

to be our kinsmen in order to gain prestige

they d r a g us into their ranks to share their b a d

o r else

r e p u t a t i o n " (2.31).

T h i s is a s t u n n i n g r e v e r s a l ; u n t h i n k a b l e f o r a n A r t a p a n u s o r e v e n

a

Philo, for w h o m t h e c o n n e c t i o n t o E g y p t c o n f e r r e d prestige a n d p e d ­ igree o n the J e w s , n o t the o t h e r w a y r o u n d . B u t they, in

contrast

to J o s e p h u s , did not have to c o n t e n d with the devastating

counter-

ethnographies of A p i o n a n d the others, w h i c h b y J o s e p h u s ' time w e r e i n w i d e c i r c u l a t i o n . T h a t is w h y J o s e p h u s i n s i s t s m u c h m o r e t h a n a n y

14

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

of his J e w i s h p r e d e c e s s o r s o n the a u t o c h t h o n y of the J e w s , a n d in p a r ­ ticular o n t h e i r i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m E g y p t (139).

Other interpretations of Josephus' sources, notes Droge, though less extreme, nonetheless require a certain amount of manipulation. For example, Josephus appears straightforwardly to have extracted a posi­ tive assessment of Jewish antiquity from Manetho's account of the Hyksos (CA 1.75-90). This inference is not, however, as straightforward as it might appear, for it required that Josephus identify the ancient Hyksos of Manetho's account with Jewish shepherds—an identification Manetho did not himself make. O n other occasions, Josephus appears to have left his sources in­ tact. For example, "Josephus' description of the theocracy established by Moses reads like a palimpsest of Hecataeus' account" (as recounted in Diodorus 40.3.3-6) (138). Even here, however, Josephus' aims re­ quired that he modify his sources in a single noteworthy way: while Hecataeus had limited Moses' Utopia to Judea and to the pre-Persian period, according to Josephus' version in CA 2 . 1 8 4 - 1 8 9 , Moses' the­ ocracy had a universal civilizing effect for all time. Droge does not attempt to draw a systematic chart of Josephan modifications of his sources in Contra Apionem. H e does, nevertheless, set some significant signposts which point to the various directions Josephus m o v e d by means of reversal, inference, and apologetic adaptations of his sources. Louis H. Feldman takes a different tack when he discerns proJewish intimations in texts which were generally intended as neutral or, more usually, anti-Jewish statements. Feldman offers numerous examples (far more than are given here) of these positive portrayals: • the antiquity of the Jews. T h e association of the Jews with Egyp­ tians actually associates them with the race regarded by the Greeks as the most ancient (CA 2.28). • the stubbornness of the Jews. This trait would have elicited praise because it was a quality possessed by the Spartans. Con­ comitantly, criticism of the Jewish refusal to fight on the sab­ bath would have evoked further associations with the Spartans who, w h e n the Persians in their first invasion of Greece were at Marathon, refused to send for help on the grounds that it would break their law because the m o o n was not full. • the intolerance of the Jews. This criticism too would have con­ jured associations with the Spartans, w h o expelled foreigners and

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

•

•

•

•

15

refused to allow their citizens to travel abroad lest they be cor­ rupted by such contacts. Again, Plato himself proffered precau­ tions against permitting foreigners to mix randomly with citizens. the virtues of the Jews. T h e criticism of the Jews' lack of in­ ventiveness, for example, was a basis for praise, for lack of inventiveness was a praiseworthy trait according to Herodotus; Plato's ideal state was said to admit of no change, for change is a product of degeneration; again, the Spartans, according to Thucydides, devised nothing new. Feldman discusses as well the positive traits of persuasive ability, courage, strength, temper­ ance, etc. indicting the Jews for Cleopatra's failure to give them grain during famine. This criticism would have aroused sympathy be­ cause of Cleopatra's callous ability, among other actions, to induce Antony to fight against his own country. the attribution to Apion of libels against the Jews. Apion was a rhetorician, and rhetoric evoked increasing skepticism during the first century. Moreover, Pliny the Elder dubbed Apion "a timbrel of his own reputation," and Aulus Gellius called him "a great self-advertiser in parading his learning." Thus, Feldman infers that "In view of the generally negative impression of Apion, we should expect that readers might well have perceived and in­ deed reveled in his self-contradictions and in his pro-Jewish in­ timations" (264). Apion's Alexandrian origins. This further undermined Apion's credibility amongst the Romans because of their low view of Egyptians in general and Alexandrians in particular.

Each of these studies represents a complementary approach to the analysis of sources cited in Contra Apionem. Each points the way to­ ward further research on identifying independent traditions in Contra Apionem, reconstructing their pre-histories, determining Josephus' modi­ fications of these sources, and reading these sources for what they tell us about the Jews, and perceptions of them, apart from the obvious anti-Jewish character of these sources.

Rhetorical strategies and purpose Several articles in this volume interpret Contra Apionem in the context of ancient Greek and R o m a n rhetoric. Robert Hall explicitly imple­ ments this approach to Contra Apionem when he infers a method of

16

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

historical inquiry from R o m a n rhetoricians (e.g., Cicero; Quintilian; the unknown author of Rhetorica ad Herennium) and analyzes Josephus' method of refutation, particularly of Manetho's account of the exo­ dus, in this light. T h e method of historical inquiry which Hall culls from R o m a n rhetorical handbooks includes: • plausible narration: alleging motives for all actions and developing the characters so that the reader expects them to act as they do. • topics: a method of historical inquiry, a series of places to look for clues by which one can construct a plausible history in which motivations, character, and actions are consistent with one an­ other. These places include questions designed to elicit: • motives consistent with a particular character and action, e.g., a cowardly character must not act bravely but surreptitiously; • characteristics of a person which coalesce to create a plau­ sible character, e.g., name, family, age; • actions and what plausibly accompany them, e.g., the lighting of a fire suggests the need for light and heat (motives) and the prior collection of w o o d (action). • testimony: evaluating character, motives, and consistency (i.e., contradictions) of witnesses, as well as their access to supposed knowledge. Hall's application of these elements of R o m a n historical inquiry to Contra Apionem illuminates considerably Josephus' method of refutation: • testimony. Josephus prepared his readers to discredit the witnes­ ses w h o opposed him by pointing out their unworthy motives, e.g., Greek historians write to display literary ability; Egyptians such as Manetho criticize the Jews out of envy. • plausible narration. Josephus discredited the plausibility of Man­ etho's narrative, e.g., pointing out contradictions between Man­ etho's account of the lepers and the one Josephus chose to believe (CA 1.230-232); exposing Manetho's inconsistency and incongruent complexes of motives, characters, and actions. • topics. Josephus used the topics to discover ways in which he could discredit Manetho's account of the exodus. • motives, e.g., Josephus questioned what advantage would have motivated the inhabitants of Jerusalem to enter into a pro­ tracted war with Egypt, for their own land surpassed the production of Egypt (CA 1.271-274).

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

17

• character, e.g., Josephus claimed that Manetho was wrong about the name Osarsiph, for it is hardly the Egyptian equiva­ lent of Moses (CA 1.286). • actions, e.g., Josephus pointed out that the gift of a city to the maimed would hardly have cohered with their rebellion (CA 1.267). Having drawn these comparisons, Hall concludes that Josephus made his case in Contra Apionem by applying a historical method which he may have learned in the R o m a n rhetorical schools. In their analysis of the rhetorical dimension of Contra Apionem, V a n Henten and Abusch compare Josephus modes of refutation with aspects of rhetoric discussed by Aristotle in The Art of Rhetoric: artifi­ cial and inartificial proofs; example and enthymeme; and topoi such as uncovering contradictions. V a n Henten and Abusch are particu­ larly concerned with the puzzling rhetorical shift from apparent refu­ tation (forensic) to panegyric (epideictic) in CA 2.145. T h e y contend that the shift from the refutation of Greek calumnies to praise of the Jewish way of life remains within the bounds of forensic rhetoric: "Josephus himself links these two distinct modalities by explicitly employing his praise sections as support for the dependability and authenticity of his Jewish textual witness, while his character assassi­ nation of Greek historiography is used to undermine the prosecutor's witness" (303). Although they praise Josephus because his refutations seem impressive and quite convincing, van Henten and Abusch con­ tend ultimately that he left key charges unanswered, such as the devastating association of the Jews with the Seth-Typhon tradition (of which Josephus was possibly unaware), according to which the Jews were regarded as a foreign force which introduced chaos into the cosmic and human order. 5

Although he too interprets Contra Apionem in the light of Greco-Roman rhetoric, Steve Mason's assessment of the purpose of Contra Apionem is at odds with the view held by van Henten and Abusch: . . . this is not primarily an exercise in forensic rhetoric, debating the truth about the past, but it hovers between epideictic (confirming shared ideals) and deliberative (requiring further action). The proper response to Josephus's appeal, I suggest, would be to explore Judean culture more intensively and to consider choosing its (3(ov as one's own, ac­ cepting Josephus's welcome to share its laws completely (216).

18

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

Mason contends that Contra Apionem is an example, not of apologetic or forensic rhetoric, but of logoi protreptikoi, "discourses and dialogues intended to promote 'conversion' to a philosophical community" (188). Mason's argument begins with a survey of the social context of Contra Apionem, particularly instances of attraction and aversion to Judaean culture in R o m e . In the same vein as Louis Feldman, Mason detects in the writings of R o m a n authors such as Tacitus, Epictetus, and Juvenal intimations that there was a strong attraction to Juda­ ism. For instance, the first item in Tacitus' demonstration of Judean depravity is that "the worst rascals among other peoples, renouncing their ancestral traditions, always kept sending tribute and contribu­ tions to Jerusalem" (Histories 5.1-13). Mason continues by citing par­ ticular cases of attraction to Judaism, such as funerary inscriptions, then proceeds to the legal situation of Judeans in R o m e , noting that authors alleged proselytizing as the cause for R o m a n disciplinary measures against the Jews. Josephus, suggests Mason, wrote in re­ sponse to the tarnishing of this image in the eyes of sympathizers and would-be proselytes following the Jewish War. T h e next stage in Mason's argument is to ascertain the purpose of the Antiquities. T h e preface (1.1-26) itself "promises much more than apologetic. Indeed, a defensive posture is remarkably absent. The whole body of the work sustains a positive appeal to gentile readers, to which the defensive elements are entirely subordinate" (197). In particular, the promise of eudaimonia reflects "the recognized goal of philosophical schools in Josephus's day" (199). Mason then analyzes the seven references to conversion in the Antiquities, particularly the important conversions in Adiabene (20.17-96) which, he contends, teach the lesson that "full conversion to Judaism is a good thing" (207). Mason paves the way for his analysis of Contra Apionem with the unequivocal assertion that: . . . the scope and tone of Antiquities are not adequately explained by an apologetic motive, although that motive is surely present. Rather, Josephus effectively provides a primer in Judean culture for interested gentiles; he even shows how God rewards sincere converts. Of course, he does not punctuate each volume with forthright exhortations to conversion; the appeal is more subtle and operates at various levels. Nevertheless, his appeal is unmistakable and, in view of the fact that he wrote this work in Rome under Domitian's reign, when judaizing was particularly hazardous, it seems courageous (207). Like van Henten and Abusch, Mason sees CA 2.145 as a pivotal point in the interpretation of Contra Apionem. Prior to 2.145, contends

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

19

Mason, even where Josephus refuted his opponents he assumed a benevolent readership already predisposed to Judean culture. Follow­ ing 2.145, in 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 8 6 , Josephus proffered "his most forceful state­ ment of Judaism's virtues: it is a way of life that is vastly superior to any other, and it welcomes converts" (212). Josephus' discussions of Jew­ ish laws and theocracy underscore Judaism's openness to faithful aliens in their midst (e.g., CA 2 . 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 258). As in the material prior to CA 2.145, defensive material is subordinated to a positive appeal. What then is the genre of Contra Apionem but a logos protreptikos, a lecture intended to gain converts to the philosophical life? Three examples of this genre—Lucian's Wisdom of Nigrinus, the Epistle to Diognetus, and Clement of Alexandria's Exhortation (Protreptikos) to the Greeks—presuppose a benevolent reader in search of happiness, iden­ tify the noblest way of life, polemically contrast this way of life with alternatives, and conclude with an implicit or explicit prospect of conversion to this way of life. These are the characteristics which Mason apprehends in Contra Apionem and which lead him to identify this treatise as a logos protreptikos. T h e present volume would prove inadequate were it to reduce Josephan studies to a uniformity of opinion. Mason's conclusions are indeed not shared by all contributors. V a n Henten and Abusch, as we saw, understand the whole of Contra Apionem as forensic rhetoric. Moreover, Kasher, whose article on Josephus' rhetorical style we have already introduced, describes the purpose of Contra Apionem in alto­ gether different terms from Mason when he writes, "Josephus cannot be suspected of having desired to encourage proselytism among the Gentiles. At most, I feel he sought to arouse sympathy for Judaism and to refute prejudices and deliberate calumnies by way of persua­ sion. It is certainly beyond doubt that he was well aware of the Emperors' policy on conversion in his d a y . . ." (154) Droge contends that the crucial goal of Contra Apionem which absorbed Josephus' energies was to demonstrate, at all costs, Jewish antiquity, because for "Josephus the allegation of 'lateness' was equivalent to the asser­ tion of cultural dependence and historical significance" (125). In pur­ suit of this goal, Josephus transformed his own biblical sources: the Moses whose antiquity he intended to demonstrate to the Greeks looks rather more like the ideal politician in Plato's Laws or Hecataeus' description of Moses than his biblical precedent. Each of these studies on the rhetorical strategies of Contra Apionem, then, leads to the unsettling conclusion that here, at this fundamental juncture of

20

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

Josephan studies, we encounter another desideratum: ascertaining the purpose of Contra Apionem.

Contra Apionem and Josephus T h e thrust of other articles in this volume is that Contra Apionem ought to be interpreted from the perspective of Josephus' experience and other writing projects. This final literary project is not an anomaly but is related integrally to Josephus' experiences and prior literary works. Per Bilde combines data from Jewish War 1.3, 18; 3.340-408; Anti­ quities 2 0 . 2 6 4 - 2 6 6 ; Vita 1-6; and CA 1.1-56 to demonstrate that in each case J o s e p h u s emphasized the same three qualifications— priestly status, prophetic gift, and first-hand knowledge—to describe the authors of the Jewish canon and his own qualifications as a Jewish writer of history. This correspondence between the writers of the canon and himself is evidence that CA 1.1-105, although it purports to address an objective conflict between Greek and Jewish (Oriental) historiography, actually represents Josephus' response to Greek criti­ cism of his own Jewish War and Antiquities. Josephus believed that his authority as author resided in his special training as a priest in keep­ ing records. In addition, Josephus' statement about the authors of the Jewish canon, w h o have been "committing to writing a clear a c c o u n t . . . just as they occurred" (CA 1.37), parallels what he says about his own qualifications as an eyewitness historian (CA 1.47-56). T h e shape of Contra Apionem, therefore, is determined by Josephus' attempt to defend his own writings by placing them on a par with the Jewish Bible. Paul Spilsbury's contribution in toto is a comparison of Contra Apionem with the biblical paraphrase in the Antiquities. After noting direct references to the Antiquities in Contra Apionem, as well as shared cita­ tions of other sources, such as Berossus, Hecataeus, Nicolas of Da­ mascus, Dios, and Menander of Ephesus, Spilsbury then cites several apologetic charges which surface in both works: • the libel that Jewish ancestors were lepers; • the charge that the Jews produced neither contributions to civi­ lization nor eminent figures;

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

• • • •

21

libels about Jewish worship; accusations of atheism and contempt for the gods of other people; misanthropy; derision of Jewish practices such as circumcision, sabbath observ­ ance, and abstinence from certain foods.

In the final section, Spilsbury discusses the neologism "theocracy" (CA 2.165) in order to demonstrate that, despite a difference in no­ menclature, this conception of Israel's government is fundamentally similar to the "aristocracy" in the Antiquities. With respect to sources cited, apologetic issues addressed, and even concepts which are de­ picted with different words, therefore, Contra Apionem is closely re­ lated to Josephus' earlier and lengthier Antiquities. Spilsbury relates Contra Apionem to Josephus' earlier literary works; Richard Bauckham relates Contra Apionem to Josephus' experience. Bauckham analyzes Josephus' account of the temple in CA 2 . 1 0 2 109 in part to highlight the persistence of Josephus' experiences from before the fall of Judea to R o m e . Bauckham demonstrates that, "al­ though the Contra Apionem is Josephus' last work, he retained, from his close association with the temple in his youth, a thorough knowl­ edge of the temple which makes him even thirty years later a generally trustworthy witness. . . . h o w e v e r closely Josephus may have depended on sources in other parts of the Contra Apionem,... he composed this passage himself" (327-328). Such recollection does not eliminate unclarities in Josephus' account, and so Bauckham examines vari­ ous aspects of the temple cult, explaining perplexities of Josephus' description: • • • •

the courts of the temple and their restrictions on entry; the shifts of the priests; objects in the temple; the priestly courses or temple service.

Throughout his analysis, Bauckham evaluates the reliability of Jose­ phus' accounts by comparing them with related rabbinic statements. For example, Bauckham explains the discrepancies between the Mishnah (m. Kel. 1:6-9) and CA 2 . 1 0 2 - 1 0 4 on precisely w h o could enter various courts of the temple mount by suggesting that Jose­ phus' account reflects the enforcement of biblical laws by the priest­ hood, while the Mishnah reflects rabbinic interpretation. O n another

22

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

occasion, Josephus' description confirms the historical accuracy of a rabbinic interpretation; the impression which rabbinic literature gives that the temple authorities had a monopoly in the provision of ani­ mals and other materials for sacrifice is corroborated by CA 2.108, in which animals and other food items were specially prepared to meet the requirements of the sacrificial system.

Conclusion These articles suggest the range of approaches, the scope of issues, which deservedly occupy a niche of Josephan studies. They are ad­ mittedly evocative rather than exhaustive, and they have been writ­ ten and organized not so much to circumscribe the contours of the discipline as to trace the potential contributions which further study of Contra Apionem promises. And since, as in all sound scholarship, a nudge toward the future is due to the cumulative efforts of the past, this introductory foray into the character and context of Josephus' Contra Apionem concludes appropriately with a record of the scholarship which is foundational to the research represented in this volume.

Overview of prior scholarship on Contra A p i o n e m

5

A b e l , E r n e s t L . " T h e M y t h of J e w i s h S l a v e r y in P t o l e m a i c E g y p t . " REJ 127 (1968): 253-58. A g a t h a r c h i d e s ' a c c o u n t {Ant 1 2 . 5 - 6 ) c o n t r a d i c t s t h a t of H e c a t a e u s {CA 1.186) a n d lacks credibility. If J e w s h a d b e e n captives, a n t i - S e m i t e s w o u l d h a v e exploited this fact.

5

T h e following select b i b l i o g r a p h y a n d a n n o t a t i o n s a r e b a s e d o n t h e c o m p r e h e n ­ sive bibliographies of J o s e p h u s b y H e i n z S c h r e c k e n b e r g {Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus, A L G H J I [ L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 6 8 ] ; Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus: Supplementband mit Gesamtregister, A L G H J X I V [ L e i d e n : Brill, 1979]) a n d L o u i s H . F e l d m a n {Scholarship on Philo and Josephus [1937-1962], S t u d i e s in J u d a i c a 1 [ N e w Y o r k : Y e s h i v a U n i v e r ­ sity, 1 9 6 3 ] ; Josephus and Modern Scholarship [ 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 8 0 ] [ B e r l i n : d e G r u y t e r , 1984]; Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography [ N e w Y o r k : G a r l a n d , 1 9 8 6 ] ; " A Selective Criti­ cal B i b l i o g r a p h y of J o s e p h u s , " in Josephus, the Bible, and History, e d . Louis H . F e l d m a n a n d G o h e i H a t a , 3 3 0 - 4 4 8 [Detroit: W a y n e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1989]). I n a d d i t i o n , A r y e h K a s h e r h a s g r a c i o u s l y m a d e available t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y from his f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y o n Contra Apionem. W e h a v e s u p p l e m e n t e d these b i b l i o g r a p h i e s w i t h a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l t h r o u g h t h e first h a l f o f 1 9 9 6 . A n n o t a t i o n s of w o r k s u p to 1984 a r e a d a p t e d from s u m m a r i e s p r o v i d e d b y F e l d m a n 1984, 1986, 1989 a n d S c h r e c k e n ­ b e r g 1 9 6 8 a n d 1979, w h e r e available. W e a r e grateful t o Professor F e l d m a n for his g u i d a n c e a n d assistance in t h e c o m p i l a t i o n of this select b i b l i o g r a p h y .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

23

A b r a h a m s , Israel. By-Paths in Hebraic Bookland. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1920. P p . 3 2 - 3 8 o n CA. A d l e r , E l k a n N . "Aristotle a n d t h e J e w s . " REJ 8 2 (1926): 9 1 - 1 0 2 . P p . 9 4 - 9 5 , 9 8 o n J o s e p h u s ' citation of G l e a r c h u s in CA 1 . 1 7 6 - 8 3 . A d r i a n i , M a u r i l i o . " N o t e sull'antisemitismo a n t i c o " Studi e materiali di storia delle Religioni 3 6 (1965): 6 3 - 9 8 . Discusses CA in t h e c o n t e x t of a n c i e n t a n t i - S e m i t i s m , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e t w e e n r e ligious a n d political m o t i v e s for a n t i - S e m i t i s m . Albrektson, Bertil. ' J o s e p h u s , R a b b i A k i b a o c h Q u m r a n . T r e a r g u m e n t i discussionen o m t i d p u n k t e n for d e n g e m m a l t e s t a m e n t l i g a k o n s o n a n t t e x t e n s s t a n d a r d i s e r i n g " [Swedish] (= J o s e p h u s , R a b b i A k i b a a n d Q u m r a n : T h r e e A r g u m e n t s in t h e D i s cussion of t h e D a t e of t h e S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of t h e C o n s o n a n t a l T e x t of t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ) . Teologinen Aikakauskirja 7 3 (1968): 2 0 1 - 1 5 . CA 1.42, " n e i t h e r a d d t o n o r s u b t r a c t f r o m " S c r i p t u r e , c o n c e r n s m o d i f i c a t i o n of c o n t e n t only a n d d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t c h a n g e s m a d e to t h e c o n s o n a n t a l text. Allgeier, A r t h u r . Biblische Zeitgeschichte in den Grundlinien dargestellt. F r e i b u r g : H e r d e r , 1937. P p . 3 5 - 3 6 o n CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , M a n e t h o ' s r e p o r t c o n c e r n i n g t h e H y k s o s . Alt, Albrecht. " D i e Herkunft d e r Hyksos in n e u e r Sicht." I n Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologien-historische Klasse, B d . 1 0 1 , Heft 6 (1954). Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1954. R e p r i n t e d in idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. V o l . 3 . E d . M . N o t h , 7 2 - 9 8 . M ü n c h e n : Beck, 1959. N a t i v e E g y p t i a n t r a d i t i o n d o e s n o t s u p p o r t J o s e p h u s ' identification of t h e H y k s o s as Israelite a n c e s t o r s {CA 1.73-105). A m i r , Y e h o s h u a . " D i e B e g e g n u n g des biblischen u n d d e s p h i l o s o p h i s c h e n M o n o t h e i s m u s als G r u n d t h e m a d e s j ü d i s c h e n H e l l e n i s m u s . " EvT 3 8 (1978): 2 - 1 9 . P. 6 o n CA 2 . 1 6 8 ; p . 10 o n CA 1 . 2 0 1 - 2 0 4 ; p . 14 o n CA 2 . 1 6 5 . . "'OeoKpaxla as a C o n c e p t of Political P h i l o s o p h y : J o s e p h u s ' P r e s e n t a t i o n o f M o s e s ' politeia" Scripta classica Israelica 8 - 9 ( 1 9 8 5 - 8 8 ) : 8 3 - 1 0 5 . J o s e p h u s depicts M o s e s ' t h e o c r a c y {CA 2.165) as t h e ideal state of G r e e k t h e o r y . . " J o s e p h u s o n t h e M o s a i c ' C o n s t i t u t i o n ' . " I n Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature. J S O T S u p 1 7 1 . E d . H . G . R e v e n t l o w et al, 1 3 - 2 7 . Sheffield: J S O T , 1994. C o m p a r e s J o s e p h u s ' s u m m a r i e s of t h e L a w i n Ant. 4 a n d CA 2. Discussion of t h e t e r m theokratia a n d its m e a n i n g in J o s e p h u s . A n d e r s o n , G e o r g e W . " C a n o n i c a l a n d N o n - C a n o n i c a l . " The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. I: From the Beginnings to Jerome. E d . P e t e r R . A c k r o y d a n d C h r i s t o p h e r F. E v a n s , 1 1 3 - 1 5 9 . C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970. Discusses J o s e p h u s ' s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e c a n o n {CA 1.37-40). A p t o w i t z e r , V i c t o r . " L e s p r e m i e r s possesseurs d e C a n a a n : L é g e n d e s a p o l o g é t i q u e s et e x é g é t i q u e s . " REJ 8 2 (1926): 2 7 5 - 8 6 . P p . 2 7 6 - 7 9 : " J o s e p h e et u n e l é g e n d e a g a d i q u e " o n CA 2 . 3 3 , 1 2 5 - 1 3 4 . A r a z y , A b r a h a m . " T h e A p p e l l a t i o n s of t h e J e w s ( I o u d a i o s , H e b r a i o s , Israel) in t h e L i t e r a t u r e from A l e x a n d e r t o J u s t i n i a n . " P h . D . diss., N e w Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. P p . 1 6 9 - 8 1 : A p i o n {CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) t r i e d t o d e p r i v e t h e t e r m Ioudaioi of respectability. Attridge, H a r o l d W . " J o s e p h u s a n d H i s W o r k s . " I n Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. C R I N T 2.2. E d . M i c h a e l E . S t o n e , 1 8 5 - 2 3 2 . P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s , 1984. P p . 2 2 7 - 3 1 offer a s u m m a r y of CA, i n c l u d i n g a n analysis of J o s e p h u s ' p o l e m i c a l techniques. A z i z a , C l a u d e . " L ' u t i l i s a t i o n p o l é m i q u e d u r é c i t d e l ' E x o d e c h e z les é c r i v a i n s a l e x a n d r i n s ( I V è m e siècle av. J . - C — 1 e r siècle a p . J . - C . ) " ANRW 2.20.1 (1987), 41-65. P p . 4 6 - 5 5 o n M a n e t h o ' s anti-Jewish v e r s i o n of t h e E x o d u s {CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 87); p p . 5 5 - 5 8 o n L y s i m a c h u s ' a c c o u n t {CA 1.304-20); p p . 6 0 - 6 1 o n C h a e r e m o n ' s

24

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

version (CA 1.288-303); p p . 6 1 - 6 3 o n A p i o n ' s a c c o u n t (CA 2.10-32). A p i o n ' s version of t h e E x o d u s m a i n t a i n s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l A l e x a n d r i a n a c c o u n t of t h e expulsion of t h e lepers, b u t b y his t i m e , the earlier story of M o s e s ' c o m m a n d to perform criminal acts h a s d i s a p p e a r e d . B a l c h , D a v i d L. " ' L e t W i v e s Be S u b m i s s i v e . . .' T h e O r i g i n , F o r m a n d A p o l o g e t i c F u n c t i o n of t h e H o u s e h o l d D u t y C o d e (Haustafel) in I P e t e r . " P h . D . diss., Yale U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. P p . 1 3 4 - 7 2 : I n CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 , J o s e p h u s p r a i s e s M o s e s ' politeia b y following t h e r h e t o r i c a l p a t t e r n (outlined b y M e n a n d e r of L a o d i c e a ) for t h e e n c o m i u m of a city or people. . " J o s e p h u s , ' A g a i n s t A p i o n ' I I . 1 4 5 - 2 9 6 : A P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t . " SBL 1975 Seminar Papers. E d . G . M a c R a e . Misssoula: S c h o l a r s , 1 9 7 5 , 1 : 1 8 7 - 1 9 2 . I n CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 , J o s e p h u s praises M o s e s ' politeia b y following t h e r h e t o r i c a l p a t ­ t e r n (outlined b y M e n a n d e r of L a o d i c e a ) for t h e e n c o m i u m of a city o r p e o p l e . . Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter. S B L M S 2 6 . C h i c o : Scholars, 1981. P p . 5 4 - 5 6 : J o s e p h u s ' v e r s i o n of t h e M o s a i c L a w (CA 2 . 1 9 9 - 2 1 6 ) shows t h e influ­ e n c e of A r i s t o d e ' s o u d i n e of h o u s e h o l d submissiveness. . " T w o Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on R o m e a n d Josephus on the J e w s . " JSJ 13 (1982): 1 0 2 - 2 2 . I n CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 , J o s e p h u s follows t h e r h e t o r i c a l p a t t e r n ( o u d i n e d b y M e n a n d e r of L a o d i c e a ) for t h e e n c o m i u m of a city o r p e o p l e in r e s p o n s e to p r e v i o u s slan­ d e r . T h e s a m e p a t t e r n is e v i d e n t in D i o n y s i u s of H a l i c a r n a s s u s ' p r a i s e of R o m e (Roman Antiquities 1.9-2.29). B a r d e t t , J o h n R . Jews in the Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus. C a m b r i d g e C o m m e n t a r i e s o n W r i t i n g s of t h e J e w i s h a n d Christian W o r l d 2 0 0 B C t o A D 2 0 0 . V o l . 1. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1985. P p . 8 6 - 8 9 o n CA. B a r t o n , J o h n . ' " T h e L a w a n d t h e P r o p h e t s : ' W h o A r e t h e P r o p h e t s ? " OTS 2 3 (1984): 1-18. F o r J o s e p h u s (CA 1.37-40), " p r o p h e t i c b o o k " m e a n s " i n s p i r e d " o r " a u t h o r i t a t i v e b o o k . " I n J o s e p h u s ' t i m e , o n l y t h e L a w w a s fixed; t h e o t h e r biblical b o o k s f o r m e d a n o p e n c o r p u s . Insofar as t h e t e r m " c a n o n " is a p p r o p r i a t e for this p e r i o d , it w a s bipartite: T o r a h a n d Prophets. B e c k w i t h , R o g e r T . The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Back­ ground in Early Judaism. G r a n d R a p i d s : E e r d m a n s , 1 9 8 5 . P p . 2 3 - 2 4 , 7 8 - 8 0 , 8 2 o n t h e e v i d e n c e of J o s e p h u s for t h e existence of a c a n o n ; p p . 1 1 8 - 1 1 9 o n J o s e p h u s ' e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e 2 2 - b o o k s t r u c t u r e of t h e c a n o n (CA 1.37-40). Belkin, S a m u e l . " T h e A l e x a n d r i a n S o u r c e for C o n t r a A p i o n e m I I . " JQR 27 ( 1 9 3 6 37): 1-32. A r g u e s t h a t , in CA 2, J o s e p h u s h a s given Philo's Hypothetica a p o p u l a r expression. . The Alexandrian Halakah in Apologetic Literature of the First Century CE. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1936. O n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n CA a n d P h i l o . . In His Image: the Jewish Philosophy of Man as Expressed in Rabbinic Tradition. L o n ­ d o n : A b e l a r d - S c h u m a n , 1960. P p . 1 5 - 1 8 o n " t h e o c r a c y " in J o s e p h u s (CA 2.165). B é r a r d , J e a n . " L e s H y k s o s et la L é g e n d e d ' I o : R e c h e r c h e s sur le p é r i o d e p r é m y ­ c é n i e n n e . " Syria 2 9 (1952): 1 - 4 3 . C o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y of t h e H y k s o s in J o s e p h u s (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) , Africanus, E u s e b i u s , S o t h i s (Syncellus), a n d t h e T u r i n p a p y r u s . B e r g m a n n , J u d a . Judische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen ^eitalter. Berlin: R e i m e r , 1908. P . 6 9 o n CA 2 . 1 - 2 .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

25

B e r n a y s , J a c o b . Theophrastos' Schrift über Frömmigkeit. Berlin: H e r t z , 1866. P p . 2 1 - 2 2 o n C h a e r e m o n [CA 1.288-92). Bialoblocki, S a m u e l . Die Beziehungen des Judentums zu Proselyten und Proselytentum. Berlin: Brecker, 1938. I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2 . 2 8 2 . B i c k e r m a n n , Elias J . " R i t u a l m o r d u n d Eselkult: E i n B e i t r a g z u r G e s c h i c h t e a n t i k e r Publizistik." MGWJ 71 (1927): 1 7 1 - 8 7 , 2 5 5 - 6 4 . R e p r i n t in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History. P a r t 2. L e i d e n : Brill, 1980, 2 2 5 - 5 5 . O n J o s e p h u s ' r e p o r t of t h e alleged cult of t h e ass in J e r u s a l e m , CA 2 . 8 0 - 8 8 , 114, 120. . " T h e J e w i s h H i s t o r i a n D e m e t r i u s . " I n Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part 3: Judaism Before 70. S J L A 1 2 . 3 . E d . J . N e u s n e r , 7 2 ~ 8 4 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 7 5 . R e p r i n t in B i c k e r m a n n idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History. P a r t 2. L e i d e n : Brill, 1980, 3 4 7 - 5 8 . O n J o s e p h u s ' a p p r o a c h t o h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in CA. J o s e p h u s follows D e m e t r i o s in modifying Biblical c h r o n o l o g y in o r d e r t o s y n c h r o n i z e it w i t h G r e e k historical events a n d personalities. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Influence. J S P S u p p l e m e n t Series 2. Sheffield: J S O T , 1 9 8 8 . P p . 113~22 o n CA: D a t i n g , tide, c o n t e n t s , disposition, t h e m e , m o t i v e , a i m , r e a d e r s , g e n r e , sources. C o n c l u d e s t h a t CA is t h e key t o all of J o s e p h u s ' w r i t i n g s . Bin G o r i o n , E m a n u e l . The Paths of Legend: An Introduction to Folktales [ H e b r e w ] . R e v . ed. J e r u s a l e m : M o s a d Bialik, 1970 [ 1 9 4 9 ] . P p . 9 5 - 9 6 , 2 4 2 - 4 6 o n t h e story of M o s o l l a m u s ( M e s h u l l a m ) , f o u n d in CA 1 . 2 0 0 204. Böhl, F r a n z M . T . d e L i a g r e . Opera Minora. G r o n i n g e n : W o l t e r s , 1 9 5 3 . P p . 1 1 8 - 1 9 o n A p i o n (CA 2 . 2 1 - 4 4 ) ; p . 11 o n C h a e r e m o n (CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 3 0 3 ) . Broshi, M a g e n . " L a p o p u l a t i o n d e l ' a n c i e n n e J e r u s a l e m . " RB 8 2 (1975): 5 - 1 4 . I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 1.197. . " T h e Credibility of J o s e p h u s . " JJS 3 3 (1982): 3 7 9 - 8 4 . CA 1.56 a n d Vita 3 4 2 , 3 5 8 i m p l y t h a t J o s e p h u s h a d access t o t h e official m i l i t a r y r e p o r t s of V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s (Commentarii), w h i c h h e u s e d in t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of t h e War. Brüll, N e h e m i a h . " D a s T o d e s j a h r A g r i p p a ' s I I u n d die Abfassungszeit d e r k l e i n e r e n Schriften des J o s e p h u s . " Jahrbücher fir jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1 (1885): 5 1 - 5 3 . A r g u e s t h a t A g r i p p a d i e d in 9 4 , t h e d a t e of t h e A n t i q u i t i e s . CA w r i t t e n s h o r d y afterward. Büchler, A d o l p h . " A z ällitölagos s z a m ä r k u l t u s z a j e r u s ä l e m i t e m p l o m b a n " (= T h e alleged cult of t h e ass in t h e T e m p l e of J e r u s a l e m ) . Magyar-^sido Szemle (Budapest) 17 (1900): 2 3 1 - 3 7 . O n CA 2 . 8 0 - 8 8 , 114, 120. . " G r a e c o - R o m a n Criticism of S o m e J e w i s h O b s e r v a n c e s a n d Beliefs." The Jewish Review 1 ( 1 9 1 0 - 1 1 ) : 1 7 - 2 9 , 1 3 1 - 4 5 . Discusses CA 1 . 1 8 8 - 9 2 . B ü d i n g e r , M a x . Egyptische Einwirkungen auf hebräische Culte. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften 75 ( V i e n n a 1873): 7 - 5 9 . P p . 2 9 - 3 3 o n J o s e p h u s ' c h r o n o l o g y in CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ( M a n e t h o ) . Buhl, F r a n t s P . W . Kanon und Text des Alten Testamentes. Leipzig: F a b e r , 1891 ( E T : Canon and Text of the Old Testament. E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , 1892). P p . 1 8 - 2 6 ( G e r m a n ) ; 1 8 - 2 2 (English) o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 0 . C a l a b i , F r a n c e s c a . Flavio Giuseppe In Difesa degli Ebrei (Contro Apione). V e n i c e : M a r s i l i o , 1993. Cancik, Hubert. "Geschichtesschreibung u n d Priestertum z u m Vergleich von orien­ talischer u n d hellenistischer H i s t o r i o g r a p h i e b e i Flavius J o s e p h u s , C o n t r a A p i o n e m ,

26

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

B u c h I . " Wie gut sind deine £elt, Jaakow.. . Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer. E d . E r n s t L u d w i g E h r l i c h et ai, 4 1 - 6 2 . G e r l i n g e n : Bleicher, 1986, 1 9 8 9 . O n J o s e p h u s ' a p p r o a c h t o h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in CA 1. . " T h e o k r a t i e u n d P r i e s t e r h e r r s c h a f t : die m o s a i s c h e V e r f a s s u n g b e i Flavius J o s e p h u s , C o n t r a A p i o n e m 2, 1 5 7 - 1 9 8 . " I n Theokratie: Religionstheorie und politische Theologie, Bd. 3 . E d . J a c o b T a u b e s , 6 5 - 7 7 . M ü n c h e n : W . F i n k / F . S c h o n i n g h , 1987. O n CA 2 . 1 5 7 - 9 8 . C a r r a s , G e o r g e P . " P h i l o ' s Hypothetica, J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem a n d t h e Q u e s t i o n of S o u r c e s . " SBL 1990 Seminar Papers. E d . D a v i d J . Lull, 4 3 1 - 5 0 . A d a n t a ; Scholars, 1990. A n a l y z e s t h e similarities b e t w e e n t h e s u m m a r i e s of t h e L a w in CA a n d Philo's Hypothetica a n d a r g u e s for a c o m m o n s o u r c e a n d b o d y of t r a d i t i o n , b u t n o t litera r y d e p e n d e n c e of CA o n t h e Hypothetica. . " D e p e n d e n c e o r C o m m o n T r a d i t i o n in P h i l o Hypothetica V I I I 6 . 1 0 - 7 . 2 0 a n d J o s e p h u s Contra Apionem 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 . " Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 2 2 - 4 7 . A n a l y z e s t h e similarities b e t w e e n t h e s u m m a r i e s of t h e L a w in CA a n d Philo's Hypothetica a n d a r g u e s for a c o m m o n s o u r c e a n d b o d y of t r a d i t i o n , b u t n o t litera r y d e p e n d e n c e of CA o n t h e Hypothetica. C a t a u d e l l a , Q u i n t i n o . "Jos. ' c . A p . ' I, 1 8 9 . " Rivista di Filologia 61 (1933): 7 5 - 7 6 . I n CA 1.189, r e a d Ôi
THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

27

C o l l o m p , P a u l . " M a n é t h o n et le n o m d u n o m e o u fut A v a r i s . " REA 4 2 (1940): 7 4 - 8 5 . O n CA 1.78. C o l s o n , F r a n c i s H . Philo. V o l . 9. L C L 3 6 3 . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 4 1 , 4 0 9 , 5 4 0 , passim. Discusses t h e d e p e n d e n c e of CA o n Philo's Hypothetica. C o n z e l m a n n , H a n s . Heiden—Juden—Christen. B H T 62. Tübingen: M o h r , 1981. P p . 2 0 4 - 1 0 o n CA. Cornill, C a r l H . Einleitung in das Alte Testament. F r e i b u r g a n d Leipzig: M ö h r , 1 8 9 1 ; 7th ed., T ü b i n g e n : M o h r , 1 9 1 3 . ( E T : Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament. L o n d o n : W i l l i a m a n d N o r g a t e , 1907). P p . 2 7 1 - 7 2 (7th ed.) o n t h e t e r m " c a n o n " a n d t h e list of b o o k s in CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 0 ; p . 2 8 0 discusses J o s e p h u s ' c o n c e p t i o n of c a n o n i c i t y . C r e u z e r , F r i e d r i c h . " J o s e p h u s u n d seine g r i e c h i s c h e n u n d hellenistischen F ü h r e r : zweiter Brief a n die D o c t o r e n d e r T h e o l o g i e U l i m a n n u n d U m b r e i t . " TSK 2 6 (1853): 4 5 - 8 6 . O n G r e e k a u t h o r s cited b y J o s e p h u s , especially in CA. C r o c k e t t , L a r r i m o r e . " L u k e I V . 1 6 - 3 0 a n d t h e J e w i s h L e c t i o n a r y C y c l e : A W o r d of C a u t i o n . " JJS 17 (1966): 1 3 - 4 6 . P p . 1 8 - 1 9 o n CA 2 . 1 7 5 . C r o u c h , J a m e s E. T h e O r i g i n a n d I n t e n t i o n of t h e C o l o s s i a n H a u s t a f e l . F R L A N T 109. G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1972. P p . 8 2 - 8 3 : J o s e p h u s ' s u m m a r y of t h e L a w in CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 is similar t o t h e Stoic kathëkon s c h e m a ; P p . 8 4 - 1 0 1 : C r o u c h c o m p a r e s CA, Philo's Hypothetica a n d P s e u d o Phocylides. C r u i c e , Patrice F . M . De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem qfferendis fide et auctoritate disquisitionem. Paris: D i d o t , 1844. E x a m i n e s t h e reliability of J o s e p h u s ' historical s o u r c e s in CA a n d c o n c l u d e s t h e y are not trustworthy. D a n i e l , J e r r y L. " A n t i - S e m i t i s m in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n P e r i o d . " JBL 9 8 (1979): 45-65. P. 5 6 in p a r t i c u l a r focuses o n A p i o n ' s a n t i - S e m i t i c c h a r g e s . . "Apologetics in J o s e p h u s . " Diss., R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 8 1 . I n CA, J o s e p h u s fails to d e f e n d t h e c e n t r a l t e n e t s of J u d a i s m , s u c h as election, c o v e n a n t , a n d t h e c l a i m t o b e t h e o n e t r u e faith. H i s h e l l e n i z a t i o n of J u d a i s m for apologetic p u r p o s e s results in a n a b a n d o n m e n t of o r t h o d o x y . D a u b e , D a v i d . The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y of L o n ­ d o n , A t h l o n e Press, 1956. P p . 1 3 8 - 4 0 o n J o s e p h u s . CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 is a t y p e of c a t e c h i s m . D a v i e s , G r a h a m I. The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament. S O T S M S 5. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979. P p . 7 - 1 3 o n J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t of t h e wilderness j o u r n i e s (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 2 . 3 2 ) . D a y , J o h n . " T h e P h a r a o h of t h e E x o d u s , J o s e p h u s a n d J u b i l e e s . " VT 4 5 (1995): 377-78. CA 1 . 7 3 - 9 4 identifies t h e P h a r a o h of t h e E x o d u s w i t h A h m o s e I, b u t CA 1 . 2 2 7 87 shows t h a t t h e E x o d u s w a s d a t e d b y s o m e a n c i e n t s in t h e r e i g n of M e r n e p t a h , w h o succeeded R a m e s e s II. D e L a n g e , N i c h o l a s R . M . Origen and the Jews. Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine. U n i v e r s i t y of C a m b r i d g e O r i e n t a l P u b l i c a t i o n s 2 5 . C a m ­ b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976. P p . 6 4 - 6 8 a r g u e t h a t t h e c h a r g e s in O r i g e n ' s Contra Celsum (unoriginality, h a t r e d of m a n k i n d , b a r b a r i s m , atheism) g o b a c k to t h e E g y p t i a n anti-Jewish writers q u o t e d in CA. D e r r e t t , J o h n D . M . "KOPBAN, O EITIN AQPON." NTS 16 ( 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 ) : 3 6 4 - 6 8 . P. 3 6 5 o n CA 1 . 1 6 6 - 6 7 .

28

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

D i b e l i u s , M a r t i n . Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert. H e i d e l b e r g : W i n t e r , 1942. P p . 3 5 - 3 6 o n CA 2 . 1 4 8 . Dornseiff, F r a n z . Echtheitsfiagen Antik-Griechischer Literatur. Rettungen des Theognis, Phokylides, Hekataios, Choirilos. Berlin: d e G r u y t e r , 1939. P . 5 4 o n C h a e r e m o n (CA 1.288-303); p p . 5 5 - 6 5 o n H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 ; 2.43); p p . 5 9 - 6 0 o n M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) ; p p . 6 6 - 6 7 o n C h o e r i l u s (CA 1.173); p p . 7 0 - 7 1 o n C l e a r c h u s (CA 1.76-83). D o w n i n g , F . G e r a l d . " C o m m o n G r o u n d w i t h P a g a n i s m in L u k e a n d J o s e p h u s . " NTS 2 8 (1982): 5 4 6 - 5 9 . I n c l u d e s discussion of parallels b e t w e e n Acts 1 4 . 1 1 - 1 8 a n d CA 2 . 1 6 5 - 6 6 , 168, 190, 192, 2 2 4 , 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 3 ; a n d b e t w e e n Acts 1 7 . 2 2 - 3 1 a n d CA 2 . 1 3 0 , 168, 1 9 0 - 9 3 , 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 , 2 5 4 , 2 8 4 . D r e w , D . L. " T w o L i t e r a r y Puzzles from P a l e s t i n e . " Bull. Fac. Arts (Cairo) 13 (1951): 53-60. O n A p i o n ' s m o c k e r y of t h e n a m e s of O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e o s (CA 2.49). D r e w s , R o b e r t . The Greek Accounts of Eastern History. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : C e n t e r for Hellenic Studies, 1973. P p . 2 0 6 - 2 0 7 a r g u e t h a t t h e citation of H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a in CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 is a forgery. P p . 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 p r o v i d e s u m m a r i e s of M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) , Berossus (CA 1.129-53), a n d M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s (CA 1.116-26). D r e y e r , O s k a r . Untersuchungen zum Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike. S p u d a s m a t a 2 4 . H ü d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1970. P p . 7 0 7 2 o n CA 2 . 1 6 8 . D r i o t o n , E t i e n n e , a n d J a c q u e s V a n d i e r . Les peuples de l'Orient Méditerranéen. II: L'Egypte. 4 t h e d . P a r i s : Les Presses universitaires d e F r a n c e , 1962. R e l a t e s i n s c r i p t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t o t h e a c c o u n t of M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) . E c k h a r d u s , J o a n n e s F r i d e r i c u s . Criminatio fictae legis Mosaicae qua maledictio deorum falso creditorum prohibeatur a Fl. Josepho depellitur. E i s e n a c h , 1787. O n CA 2 . 2 3 7 . E i c h h o r n , J o h a n n G . Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 3 vols. Leipzig: W e i d m a n n , 1 7 8 0 8 3 ; 2 d ed., 3 vols. R e u d i n g e n : J . G r ö z i n g e r , 1790, p p . 1 0 1 - 1 9 ; 3 d ed., 3 vols. Leipzig: W e i d m a n n , 1 8 0 3 , p p . 1 0 7 - 2 5 ; 4 t h ed., 6 vols. G ö t t i n g e n : R o s e n b u s c h , 1823-24. V o l . 1, p p . 1 4 1 - 6 3 o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 0 , c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a n o n . Eissfeldt, O t t o . Einleitung in das Alte Testament. T ü b i n g e n : M o h r , 1934, 1 9 5 6 , 1 9 6 4 . ( E T of t h e 3 d ed.: The Old Testament: An Introduction. N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r , 1965). P p . 6 9 5 - 7 0 7 (2d ed.); 7 6 2 - 7 3 (3d ed.); 5 5 9 - 7 1 (ET): CA 1 . 3 8 - 4 2 shows t h e c a n o n w a s closed b y 100. E n g b e r g , R o b e r t M . The Hyksos Reconsidered. T h e O r i e n t a l Institute of t h e University of C h i c a g o , S t u d i e s in A n c i e n t O r i e n t a l Civilization 18. C h i c a g o : University of C h i c a g o , 1939. Discusses t h e a c c o u n t of M a n e t h o , r e l a t e d in CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 . E p s t e i n , J a k o b N . Introduction to Tannaititc Literature: Mishna, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim [ H e b r e w ] . E d . E z r a Z . M e l a m e d . J e r u s a l e m : M a g n e s , 1957. P . 2 9 9 o n CA 2 . 3 9 ; p . 3 7 6 o n CA 1.22. F a r r é , Luis. Apiôn y el antisemitismo. B u e n o s Aires: A c e r v o C u l t u r a l , 1964. T r e a t s CA a n d t h e l a r g e r q u e s t i o n of a n t i - s e m i t i s m in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d . F a u , G u y . Le Dossier juif: Rome contre les Juifs. Paris: E d i t i o n s d e l ' U n i o n rationaliste, 1967. P p . 2 3 - 1 1 7 i n c l u d e a discussion of t h e writings of A p i o n (CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) . F e l d m a n , L o u i s H . " P h i l o - S e m i t i s m a m o n g A n c i e n t I n t e l l e c t u a l s . " Tradition 1 ( 1 9 5 8 59): 2 7 - 3 9 . I n c o n t r a s t to s o m e a n c i e n t intellectuals' d e p r e c a t i o n of J u d a i s m , m a n y classical w r i t e r s (including C l e a r c h u s , H e c a t a e u s , H e r m i p p u s , T h e o p h r a s t u s , all cited in CA) find in t h e J e w s e x a m p l e s of t h e four c a r d i n a l virtues. T

2

3

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

29

. "Flavius J o s e p h u s Revisited: t h e M a n , H i s W r i t i n g s , a n d H i s Significance." ANRW 2.21.2 (1984): 7 6 3 - 8 6 2 . P p . 8 5 7 - 5 9 : b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l s t u d y e n t i t l e d , " J o s e p h u s as A p o l o g i s t : A g a i n s t Apion." . Josephus and Modern Scholarship ( 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 8 0 ) . Berlin: D e G r u y t e r , 1984. A n n o t a t e d b i b l i o g r a p h y . I n d e x w i t h extensive list of w o r k s d e a l i n g w i t h CA. . "Pro-Jewish I n t i m a t i o n s in Anti-Jewish R e m a r k s C i t e d in J o s e p h u s ' A g a i n s t A p i o n . " JQR 7 8 (1988): 1 8 7 - 2 5 1 . A p i o n i n h e r i t e d a n earlier p r o - J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w h i c h h e w a s forced t o r e i n t e r p r e t in a negative light; as a result, A p i o n ' s anti-Jewish p o l e m i c (CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) implicitly b e a r s witness to p r o - J e w i s h beliefs in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d , especially c o n c e r n i n g t h e a n t i q u i t y of M o s e s . . " O r i g e n ' s Contra Celsum a n d J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem: T h e Issue of J e w i s h O r i g i n s . " VC 4 4 (1990): 1 0 5 - 3 5 . O r i g e n n e e d e d to d e f e n d J u d a i s m in o r d e r to establish t h e credibility of C h r i s tianity; to d o so h e m a d e use of J o s e p h u s ' a r g u m e n t s in CA for t h e a n t i q u i t y a n d w i s d o m of M o s e s a n d t h e J e w s . . Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 3 . Includes extensive discussion of CA, c o n c e r n i n g b o t h t h e anti-Jewish p o l e m i c s of A p i o n a n d o t h e r hellenistic writers a n d t h e a p o l o g e t i c r e s p o n s e of J o s e p h u s . Fell, W . " D e r B i b e l k a n o n d e s F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s . " BZ 7 (1909): 1 - 1 6 , 1 1 3 - 2 2 , 235-44. P p . 1-16 o n CA 1.37-41 a n d t h e e x t e n t of t h e c a n o n ; p p . 1 1 3 - 2 2 o n t h e closing of t h e c a n o n a n d t h e division of t h e b o o k s ; p p . 2 3 5 - 4 4 o n J o s e p h u s ' a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e so-called d e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l b o o k s . Filipowski, H e r s c h e l b e n j e h e z k e l . Sefer Mo ed mo'adim. L o n d o n : N u t t , 1 9 6 8 . P p . 1-36 p r o v i d e a t r a n s l a t i o n of CA in H e b r e w . F i n e g a n , J a c k . Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964. P. 36 o n CA 1.118; p p . 1 3 8 - 3 9 o n CA 1.1; p . 171 o n CA 1.54. Frankl, Fridericus. Quaestiones ad Flavii Josephi libros pertinentes qui vulgo rax' 'Arciovoç nominantur. N i k o l s b u r g ( P r o g r a m m ) , 1 9 1 3 . D e a l s w i t h t h e v a r i o u s G r e e k tides of CA, its d a t e (97 o r 98) a n d p u r p o s e , a n d t h e r e a s o n for its d e d i c a t i o n to E p a p h r o d i t u s . Fraser, P . M . Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1972. D e s c r i b e s t h e political, social, religious, a n d intellectual b a c k g r o u n d t o t h e alexa n d r i a n a n t i - S e m i t i s m w h i c h J o s e p h u s c o m b a t s in CA. P p . 4 9 6 - 5 0 5 o n H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 ; 2.43); p p . 5 0 5 - 1 1 o n M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) ; p p . 5 3 9 - 5 0 o n A g a t h a r c h i d e s (CA 1.205-12). F r e e d m a n , D a v i d N . " T h e B a b y l o n i a n C h r o n i c l e . " BA 19 (1956): 5 0 - 6 0 . Discusses t h e significance of W i s e m a n ' s p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e C h r o n i c l e (1956; see below) w h i c h confirms Berossus' a c c o u n t of t h e B a t d e of C a r c h e m i s h (CA 1.135). F r e u n d , L. " U b e r G e n e a l o g i e n u n d F a m i l i e n r e i n h e i t in b i b l i s c h e r u n d t a l m u d i s c h e r Z e i t . " I n Festschrift Adolf Schwartz. E d . S a m u e l K r a u s s , 1 6 3 - 9 2 . Berlin: L o w i t , 1917. (Reprint; N e w Y o r k : A r n o , 1980). P p . 1 7 0 - 7 1 , 173, 177, 190 o n CA 1 . 3 0 - 3 5 . G a g e r , J o h n G . " P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s A g a i n . " £ A W 6 0 (1969): 1 3 0 - 3 9 . A r g u e s for t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of CA 1 . 1 8 7 - 2 0 4 ; 2 . 4 3 . . Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. S B L M S 16. Nashville: A b i n g d o n , 1 9 7 2 . Surveys views of G r e c o - R o m a n w r i t e r s o n M o s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e cited in CA: H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ( p p . 2 6 - 3 7 ) ; M a n e t h o ( p p . 1 1 3 - 1 8 ) ; L y s i m a c h u s ( p p . 1 1 8 20); C h a e r e m o n ( p p . 1 2 0 - 2 2 ) ; A p i o n ( p p . 1 2 2 - 2 4 ) . Galling, K u r t . Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen ^'ta/fer. T u b i n g e n : M o h r , 1964. P p . 2 9 - 3 2 o n t h e f r a g m e n t of Berossus (CA 1.150). c

30

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

G a r b i n i , G i o v a n n i . " G l i ' A n n a l i di T i r o ' e la storiografia fenicia." I n Oriental Studies Presented to B. S. J. Isserlin. E d . R . E b i e d a n d M . J . L. Y o u n g , 1 1 4 - 1 2 7 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1980. O n t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e a r c h i v e s of T y r e cited b y J o s e p h u s from t h e w o r k s of D i u s a n d of M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s (CA 1 . 1 1 3 - 1 2 5 , 1 5 6 - 5 8 ) . Official r e c o r d s of T y r e w e r e n o t s o u r c e s for these historians. J o s e p h u s ' claim t o h a v e u s e d t h e a r ­ chives of T y r e is a n i n v e n t i o n for a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s . G a r d i n e r , A l a n H . Egypt of the Pharaohs. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1 9 6 1 . P p . 1 5 5 - 1 7 4 c r i t i q u e t h e history of M a n e t h o as given in J o s e p h u s (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 227-87). G a u g e r , J ö r g - D i e t e r . " E i n e m i s s v e r s t a n d e n e S t r a b o n s t e l l e ( z u m J u d e n b e r i c h t X V I 2, 37). Historia ( W i e s b a d e n ) 2 8 (1979): 2 1 1 - 2 4 . O n J o s e p h u s ' f r a g m e n t s of P o s i d o n i u s (CA 2 . 7 9 - 8 0 , 8 9 , 9 1 - 9 6 ) . . " Z i t a t e in d e r j ü d i s c h e n Apologetik u n d die Authentizität d e r Hekataios-Passagen b e i Flavius J o s e p h u s u n d i m Ps. Aristeas-Brief." JSJ 13 (1982): 6 - 4 6 . T h e citations of H e c a t a e u s in CA 1 : 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 a n d Ps. Aristeas 31 m u s t b e consid­ e r e d a u t h e n t i c , b u t t h e citation in CA 2 . 4 3 is p r o b a b l y n o t a u t h e n t i c . I n c l u d e s discussion of J o s e p h u s ' m a n n e r of q u o t a t i o n as well as excurses o n t h e state of r e s e a r c h a n d o n t h e title " h i g h p r i e s t " given t o E z e c h i a s (CA 1.187). Geffcken, J o h a n n e s . Z ^ griechische Apologeten. L e i p z i g : T e u b n e r , 1907. ( R e p r i n t : H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1970). P p . x x i x - x x x i p r o v i d e a n analysis of t h e a r g u m e n t in CA. G e l b h a u s , S i g m u n d . Die Apologetik des Judenthums in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. I. T h e i l . W i e n : L ö w i t , 1896. P p . 8 7 - 1 0 0 give p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to CA. G e o r g i , D i e t e r . Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief: Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spätantike. W M A N T 1 1 . N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n : N e u k i r c h e n e r V e r l a g , 1964. ( E T : T h e O p p o n e n t s of P a u l in S e c o n d C o r i n t h i a n s . P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress, 1986). I n c l u d e s analysis of J o s e p h u s ' use of s o u r c e s ( a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p t o Philo) a n d a discussion of CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 1 9 1 ( p p . 140, 1 4 2 - 4 3 ; E T , 1 2 0 - 2 1 ) ; CA 2 . 2 7 9 - 9 5 ( p p . 9 1 , 139, 169; E T , 8 6 , 119, 138). G e r b e r , C h r i s t i n e . " D i e H e i l i g e n Schriften des J u d e n t u m s n a c h Flavius J o s e p h u s . " I n Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Christentum. W U N T 7 3 . E d . M a r t i n H e n g e l a n d H e r m u t L o h r , 9 1 - 1 1 3 . T ü b i n g e n : M o h r , 1994. O n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 1 . G e r b e r , F r a n k . " P l u t . Caes. 3 , 1 : e i n e K o r r e k t u r des Flavius J o s e p h u s . " Rheinisches Museum 134 (1991): 1 5 7 - 6 1 . P l u t a r c h ' s positive p o r t r a y a l of A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n w a s i n t e n d e d t o c o u n t e r J o s e ­ p h u s ' criticisms in CA 2 (2.16, 7 9 , 1 4 5 , 148, 2 3 6 , 2 5 5 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 2 , 2 7 0 , 295). G e r h a r d s s o n , Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. U p p s a l a : G l e e r u p , 1961 (1964 ). P p . 5, 61 o n CA 1.42; p . 5 8 o n CA 2.175ff., 2 0 4 ; p . 8 6 o n CA 2 . 1 8 7 ; p . 126 o n CA 2 . 1 7 5 , 178. G e r h a r z , J . " D e r G o t t e s g l a u b e in d e r hellenistisch-jüdischen A p o l o g i e . " Diss., M ü n s t e r , 1921 [typescript]. P p . 1 0 7 - 1 2 9 o n belief in G o d in J o s e p h u s ' w o r k s , i n c l u d i n g CA. G i a g r a n d e , G i u s e p p e . " E m e n d a t i o n s t o J o s e p h u s Flavius ' C o n t r a A p i o n e m ' . " Classical Quarterly 12 (1962): 1 0 8 - 1 1 7 . O n CA 1.139, 3 0 7 ; 2 . 2 3 , 1 3 1 , 2 1 5 . G o l d e n b e r g , D a v i d . " T h e H a l a k h a i n J o s e p h u s a n d in T a n n a i t i c L i t e r a t u r e : A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y . " JQR 6 7 (1976): 3 0 - 4 3 . Suggests t h a t J o s e p h u s d r e w o n w r i t t e n s o u r c e s for his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of laws. P. 37 o n CA 2 . 2 9 . G o o d e , A l e x a n d e r D . " A D e t a i l e d Analysis a n d Critical Discussion of J o s e p h u s ' ' O n we

2

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

31

t h e A n t i q u i t y of t h e J e w s against A p i o n . ' " U n p u b l i s h e d essay [typescript]. C i n ­ cinnati: H e b r e w U n i o n College, 1935. C o n t e n t s : B i o g r a p h y ; Religion; T i t l e , D a t e a n d T e x t ; T h e O c c a s i o n of t h e w o r k ; P h i l o n i a n Influence; G r e e k influence; J o s e p h u s ' U s e of t h e Bible; T h e Style of t h e W o r k ; Analysis a n d C r i t i c i s m ; N o t e s . G o o d e n o u g h , E r w i n . R . Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. N e w Y o r k : Pantheon, 1953-68. 1.270 o n CA 1 . 1 8 7 - 8 9 ; 1.37 o n CA 1.233; I X . 2 2 3 o n CA 1.286; 1.38 a n d I V . 12 o n CA 2 . 7 3 - 7 5 . G o r m a n , Peter. " P y t h a g o r u s P a l a e s t i n u s . " Philologus 127 (1983): 3 0 - 4 2 . E x p l a i n s CA 1 . 1 6 3 - 6 4 , P y t h a g o r u s ' p r o h i b i t i o n r e g a r d i n g a n ass. G r a b b e , Lester L. " C h r o n o g r a p h y in Hellenistic J e w i s h H i s t o r i o g r a p h y . " SBL 1979 Seminar Papers. 2 vols. E d . P . J . A c h t e m e i e r , 2 : 4 3 - 6 8 . M i s s o u l a : S c h o l a r s , 1979. O n CA 1.1. G r a e t z , H e i n r i c h . " U r s p r u n g d e r zwei V e r l ä u m d u n g e n g e g e n d a s J u d e n t h u m v o m Eselskultus u n d v o n d e r Lieblosigkeit g e g e n A n d e r s g l ä u b i g e . " MGWJ 21 (1872): 193-206. Discusses CA 2 . 7 9 - 1 1 1 . . " D i e j u d ä i s c h e n E t h n a r c h e n o d e r A l a b a r c h e n in A l e x a n d r i a . " MGWJ 25 (1876): 2 0 9 - 2 2 4 ; 2 4 1 - 5 4 ; 3 0 8 - 2 0 . I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2 . 3 3 - 6 0 . . " D i e j ü d i s c h e n Proselyten i m R ö m e r r e i c h e u n t e r d e n K a i s e r n D o m i t i a n , N e r v a , T r a j a n u n d H a d r i a n . " Jahresbericht des jüdische-theologischen Seminars "Fränkelscher Stiflung. " Breslau: S c h o t d a e n d e r , 1884. P p . 2 6 - 2 7 o n E p a p h r o d i t u s (CA 2.296), a n d o n t h e p u r p o s e s of CA. G r a y , R e b e c c a . Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d University Press, 1 9 9 3 . P p . 8 - 1 6 o n CA 1.41 a n d t h e i d e a of t h e cessation of p r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s . G r e e n , A l b e r t o R . " D a v i d ' s R e l a t i o n s w i t h H i r a m : Biblical a n d J o s e p h a n E v i d e n c e for T y r i a n C h r o n o l o g y . " I n The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman. E d . C a r o l L. M e y e r s a n d M . O ' C o n n o r , 3 7 3 - 9 7 . W i n o n a Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. O n t h e T y r i a n k i n g lists in CA 1 . 1 0 6 - 2 6 . G r e e n b e r g , M o s h e . " T h e Stabilization of t h e T e x t of t h e H e b r e w Bible R e v i e w e d in t h e Light of t h e Biblical M a t e r i a l s from t h e J u d e a n D e s e r t . " JAOS 7 6 (1956): 157-67. CA 1.42 p r o v e s t h a t t h e biblical text w a s fixed a n d u n c h a n g e a b l e . G r e e n s p o o n , L e o n a r d . " T h e P r o n o u n c e m e n t S t o r y in P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s . " Semeia 20 (1981): 7 3 - 8 0 . E x a m p l e s of this f o r m i n c l u d e CA 1 . 2 0 1 - 2 0 4 . G r e s s m a n n , H u g o . Der Messias. G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t , 1929. P p . 4 1 9 - 4 2 0 discuss t h e o r a c l e of A m e n o p h i s (CA 1.26, 228ff.). G u d e m a n , Alfred. " L y s i m a c h o s . " RE 1 4 : 3 2 - 3 9 . O n t h e G r e e k g r a m m a t i c i a n cited b y J o s e p h u s in CA 1 . 3 0 4 - 2 0 . G u t m a n , J o s h u a . "Eine antisemitische Erfindung a m E n d e des zweiten T e m p e l s " [ H e b r e w ] . Tsiyunim: Kovets le-zikhrono shel T(a akov) N(aflali) Simhoni (= Memorial Vol­ ume for Y. N Simhoni). Berlin: E s h k o l , 1929, 1 8 1 - 8 5 . O n t h e visit of A p o l l o t o t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e in CA 2 . 1 1 2 - 1 1 4 . . The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature [ H e b r e w ] . 2 vols. J e r u s a l e m : M o s a d Bialik, 1 9 5 8 - 6 3 . V o l . 1, p p . 9 1 - 1 0 2 o n C l e a r c h u s of Soli (CA 1.177-181). v o n G u t s c h m i d , Alfred. Kleine Schriften. 5 vols. E d . F r a n z R ü h l . L e i p z i g : T e u b n e r , 1889-94. 1:275-76 o n J o s e p h u s a n d M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) ; 2 . 6 1 - 7 1 : D i u s a n d c

32

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s o n T y r i a n h i s t o r y (CA 1 . 1 0 6 - 2 6 ) ; 4 . 3 5 6 - 5 8 9 : l e c t u r e s o n CA. G u t t m a n n , M i c h a e l . Das Judentum und seine Umwelt: Eine Darstellung der religiösen und rechtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Juden und NichtJuden mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der talmudisch-rabbinischen Quelle. Berlin: P h i l o , 1927. P p . 6 6 - 9 7 discuss proselytes a n d G o d - f e a r e r s in J o s e p h u s (CA 2.282); P p . 1 4 3 - 4 4 d e a l w i t h J e w i s h r e s p e c t for o t h e r religions (CA 2.237). H a h n , S. (= Istvân). " J o s e p h u s o n P r a y e r in c. A p . I I . 1 9 7 . " Études orientales à la mémoire de Paul Hirschler. E d . O . K o m l o s , 1 1 1 - 1 1 5 . B u d a p e s t : K e r t é s z n.y., 1950. J o s e p h u s ' c o n c e p t i o n of p r a y e r is c e n t e r e d o n h u m a n s r a t h e r t h a n o n G o d . CA 2 . 1 9 7 reflects a C y n i c d i a t r i b e ; H o r a c e , Odes 1.31 is a close parallel. H a l é v y , J o s e p h . " L e C u l t e d ' u n e tête d ' â n e . " RevSém 11 (1903): 1 5 4 - 6 4 . O n CA 2 . 1 1 2 - 1 2 0 . . " L a visite d ' A p o l l o n a u t e m p l e juif." RevSém 18 (1910): 2 1 8 - 2 2 . O n CA 2 . 1 1 2 - 2 0 . H a r d w i c k , M i c h a e l E . Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature Through Eusebius. B r o w n J u d a i c S t u d i e s 128. A d a n t a : S c h o l a r s , 1989. P p . 1 0 - 1 4 , 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 o n CA in T h e o p h i l u s of A n t i o c h ' s To Autolycus; p . 4 9 o n T e r t u l l i a n ' s familiarity w i t h CA in his Apology; p p . 9 0 - 1 0 2 o n CA in E u s e b i u s ' Preparation for the Gospel. H a y , D a v i d M . " W h a t is P r o o f ? R h e t o r i c a l Verification in P h i l o , J o s e p h u s , a n d Q u i n t i l i a n . " I n SBL Seminar Papers, 1979. E d . P a u l J . A c h t e m e i e r , 8 7 - 1 0 0 . Missoula: Scholars, 1979. E x p l a i n s similarities b e t w e e n Philo's In Flaccum a n d CA as d u e t o c o m m o n t r a d i tions of Hellenistic r h e t o r i c a n d of Hellenistic J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c . H e i n e m a n n , Isaak. " A n t i s e m i t i s m u s . " RE S u p p . 5 , 3 - 4 3 . P p . 2 6 - 2 7 o n M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) ; p . 27 o n C h a e r e m o n (CA 1 . 2 8 8 303); p p . 3 0 - 3 1 o n A p i o n (CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) . . " U r s p r u n g u n d W e s e n d e s A n t i s e m i t i s m u s i m A l t e r t u m . " I n Festgabe zum zehnjährigen Bestehen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1919-1929. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1929, 7 6 - 9 1 . I n c l u d e s discussion of M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) , A p i o n ' s r e p o r t of A n t i o c h u s I V ' s e n t r y i n t o t h e H o l y of H o l i e s (CA 2 . 8 9 - 1 1 1 ) , a n d t h e identification of M o s e s w i t h O s a r s i p h (CA 1.250). H e l c k , H a n s W o l f g a n g . Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den ägyptischen Königslisten. Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1956. Discusses J o s e p h u s ' lists of kings (CA 1 . 7 5 - 9 0 , 9 4 - 1 0 2 ) . . Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jarhtausend v. Chr. Ägyptologische A b h a n d l u n g e n 5. W i e s b a d e n : H a r r a s s o w i t z , 1962. P p . 9 2 - 9 7 , M a n e t h o ' s e v i d e n c e o n t h e H y k s o s is reliable (CA 1.73-92). Hengel, Martin. "Proseuche u n d Synagoge: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und G o t t e s d i e n s t in d e r D i a s p o r a u n d in P a l ä s t i n a . " I n Festschrift K(arl) G. Kuhn, 1 5 7 84. Göttingen, 1971. P . 170 o n CA 1.189; p p . 1 7 1 - 7 2 o n CA 2 . 1 0 . H e r z o g , I s a a c H . " S o m e t h i n g o n J o s e p h u s " [ H e b r e w ] . Sinai 2 5 (1949): 8 - 1 1 . J o s e p h u s r e d e e m e d h i m s e l f in p a r t t h r o u g h his historical writings a n d t h r o u g h his defense of t h e J e w s in CA. H o l l a d a y , C a r l R . Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1: Historians. C h i c o : Scholars, 1983. P p . 2 7 7 - 3 3 5 : I n t r o d u c t i o n , b i b l i o g r a p h y , text, critical a p p a r a t u s , t r a n s l a t i o n a n d extensive c o m m e n t a r y o n P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s (CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 4 ; CA 2.42~43). H o m m e l , H i l d e b r e c h t . " D a s W o r t K a r b a n u n d seine V e r w a n d t e n . " Philologus 9 8 (1954): 1 3 2 - 4 9 . ( R e p r i n t e d in idem, e d . Wege zu Aischylos 1. D a r m s t a d t : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974, 3 6 8 - 8 9 ) . P p . 1 3 9 - 4 2 o n " c o r b a n " in J o s e p h u s (CA 1.166-67).

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

33

H o r a n , R . " A c c u s a t i o n s A g a i n s t t h e J e w s a n d J o s e p h u s ' D e f e n s e : A S t u d y of t h e Contra Apionem." Diss., T r i n i t y C o l l e g e (Dublin), 1 9 9 1 . H o r n u n g , Erik. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Ägyptologische A b h a n d l u n g e n 1 1 . W i e s b a d e n : H a r r a s s o w i t z , 1964. P p . 22, 3 1 - 3 6 , 3 8 - 3 9 , 5 8 , 7 1 , 9 5 - 9 6 , 1 0 7 - 1 0 9 t r e a t J o s e p h u s ' citations of M a n e t h o (CA 1.94-105) in r e l a t i o n t o E g y p t i a n c h r o n o l o g y a n d history, v a n d e r H o r s t , P i e t e r W . " C h a e r e m o n , E g y p t i s c h p r i e s t e r e n a n t i s e m i t i s c h Stoicijn uit d e tijd v a n h e t N i e u w e T e s t a m e n t " (= C h a e r e m o n : E g y p t i a n Priest a n d a n t i - S e m i t i c Stoic f r o m t h e T i m e of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ) . NedTTs 3 5 (1981): 265-72. O n t h e life a n d writings of t h e a n t i - S e m i t i c C h a e r e m o n (CA 1.288-92). . Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. E P R O 1 0 1 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1984, 1987 . Includes English translation a n d detailed c o m m e n t a r y o n f r a g m e n t s of C h a e r e m o n , i n c l u d i n g CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 9 2 . . " T h o u S h a l t N o t R e v i l e t h e G o d s ' : T h e L X X T r a n s l a t i o n of E x . 2 2 : 2 8 (27), Its B a c k g r o u n d a n d I n f l u e n c e . " Stadia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 1-8. (= " ' G i j zult van goden geen k w a a d spreken': D e Septuaginta-vertaling v a n Exodus 22:27 [28], h a a r a c h t e r g r o n d e n i n v l o e d . " NedTTs 4 6 [ 1 9 9 2 ] : 1 9 2 - 9 8 ) . O n t h e use of E x o d 2 2 : 2 8 a ( L X X ) in J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c s , as s e e n in P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s (CA 2 . 2 3 7 ; Ant. 4.207). H u x l e y , G e o r g e . " C h o i r i l o s of S a m o s . " GRBS 10 (1969): 1 2 - 2 9 . O n CA 1 . 1 7 2 - 7 5 . H y a t t , J a m e s P . " N e w Light o n N e b u c h a d r e z z a r a n d j u d e a n H i s t o r y . " JBL 75 (1956): 277-84. W i s e m a n ' s p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e B a b y l o n i a n C h r o n i c l e (1956; see below) c o n f i r m s J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t (cf. CA 1.135). J a b l ô n s k i , P a u l E. Opuscula quitus Lingua et Antiquitas Aegyptiorum difficilia Librorum Sacrorum Loca et Historiae ecclesiasticae Capita illustrantur. E d . J . G . T e W a t e r . 4 V o l s . L e y d e n : H o n k o o p , 1804. V o l . 1, p p . 2 3 5 - 4 2 o n Laßßaxcoaic a n d Xaßßco (CA 2 . 2 1 , 27); p p . 3 5 6 - 6 5 o n t h e H y k s o s (CA 1.75-83). J a c k s o n , B e r n a r d S. Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. S J L A 10. L e i d e n : Brill, 1975. P p . 2 1 5 - 1 6 o n t h e q u e s t i o n of liability for t h e i n t e n t i o n t o t r a n s g r e s s in CA 2 . 2 1 5 , 217. J a c o b s o n , H o w a r d . " H e r m i p p u s , P y t h a g o r a s a n d t h e J e w s . " REJ 135 (1976): 1 4 5 - 4 9 . Discusses CA 1 . 1 6 4 - 6 5 , w h e r e J o s e p h u s q u o t e s H e r m i p p u s of S m y r n a to s h o w t h a t P y t h a g o r a s ' beliefs a n d p r a c t i c e s w e r e i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e J e w s , a n d e x p l a i n s these J e w i s h influences o n t h e basis of E x o d 22:27(28); 2 3 : 5 , 7. . " A p i o n ' s N i c k n a m e . " AJP 9 8 (1977): 4 1 3 - 1 5 . T h e inscription O G I Sel 6 6 2 (from t h e Colossus of M e m n o n ) , 'Arcicov 7c^eiaxov[naiç], s h o u l d p r o b a b l y b e r e a d as pleistoneikës ( q u a r r e l s o m e ) a n d b e u n d e r s t o o d as a pejorative reference to A p i o n ' s bellicose n a t u r e . J a c o b y , Adolf. " D e r a n g e b l i c h e Eselskult d e r J u d e n u n d C h r i s t e n . " A R W 2 5 (1927): 265-282. O n CA 2 . 1 1 2 ~ 2 0 a n d t h e b a c k g r o u n d of this p a s s a g e in t h e history of religions. J a c o b y , Felix. " H e k a t a i o s a u s A b d e r a (4)." RE 7 : 2 7 5 0 - 6 9 . F r a g m e n t s of H e c a t a e u s in CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 4 a r e n o t a u t h e n t i c . . Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. 3 vols, in 15 p a r t s . Berlin: W e i d m a n n / L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 2 3 - 5 8 . G r e e k a u t h o r s a n d texts w i t h extensive n o t e s . R e f e r e n c e s t o specific a u t h o r s cited in CA m a y b e f o u n d in S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s article in this v o l u m e . J a e g e r , W e r n e r . Diokles von Karystos: Die griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles. Berlin: d e G r u y t e r , 1 9 3 8 . 2

34

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

P p . 1 3 4 - 1 5 3 : " T h e o p h r a s t u s a n d t h e first G r e e k r e p o r t of t h e J e w s . " Discusses t h e references t o t h e J e w s in G r e e k a u t h o r s cited in CA 1 . 1 6 6 - 8 2 . . " G r e e k s a n d J e w s : T h e First G r e e k R e c o r d s of J e w i s h R e l i g i o n a n d Civilizat i o n . " JR 18 (1938): 1 2 7 - 4 3 . P p . 1 2 7 - 2 8 o n CA 1.168, 172; P p . 1 3 0 - 3 1 o n CA 1 . 1 7 6 - 8 3 . J a n n e , H e n r i . " U n c o n t r e s e n s d e C a s s i o d o r e : les 'furets' d u C o n t r e A p i o n . " Byzantion 11 (1936): 2 2 5 - 2 7 . O n CA 2 . 8 1 : a g a i n s t R e i n a c h ' s r e a d i n g "felibus" o r " c a n i b u s " for t h e u n k n o w n w o r d " f u r o n i b u s . " C a s s i o d o r u s ' t r a n s l a t i o n confused ö ÎKTW (the falcon) w i t h TI ÏKTIÇ (the m a r t e n - c a t ) . T h e c o r r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n "asinus milvis et hircis" etc. J e r e m i a s , Alfred. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients. Leipzig: J . C . H i n r i c h s , 1904. ( E T of 2 d ed.: The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East: Manual of Biblical Archaeology. 2 V o l s . L o n d o n : W i l l i a m s & N o r g a t e , 1911). P p . 2 5 1 - 5 2 ( E T : 2 : 8 5 - 9 0 ) o n a c c o u n t s of t h e E x o d u s in M a n e t h o (CA 1.227-87), C h a e r e m o n (CA 1.288-303), L y s i m a c h u s (CA 1.304-20) a n d A p i o n (CA 2 . 8 - 3 2 ) . J e r e m i a s , J o a c h i m . " H e s e k i e l t e m p e l u n d S e r u b b a b e l t e m p e l . " ^ 4 ^ K 5 2 (1934): 109— 112. O n t h e r e p o r t of H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a in CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 4 c o n c e r n i n g t h e J e w i s h Temple. J o h n s o n , M a r s h a l l D . The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. S N T S M S 8. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 8 9 . P p . 9 9 - 1 0 1 o n CA 1 . 3 0 - 3 6 . K a h n J a s h a r , J o h a n a n . " A p i o n : P r o t o t y p e of P r e - C h r i s t i a n A n t i - S e m i t i s m " [ H e b r e w ] . Mahanaim 112 (1967): 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 . P o p u l a r c o m p a r i s o n of A p i o n ' s attacks o n t h e J e w s (CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) w i t h C h r i s t i a n anti-Semitism. K a m i a h , E h r h a r d . " F r ö m m i g k e i t u n d T u g e n d : D i e G e s e t z e s a p o l o g i e des J o s e p h u s in c A p 2, 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 . " I n Josephus-Studien. E d . O t t o Betz et ai, 2 2 0 - 3 2 . G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t , 1974. W h i l e CA s h o w s influences from Hellenistic J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c , it also evinces a s t r o n g o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d P a l e s t i n i a n J u d a i s m . Suggests t h a t J o s e p h u s d e p e n d s o n H e c a t a e u s for m a n y of his c o m m e n t s o n J e w i s h piety a n d v i r t u e . K a s h e r , A r y e h . " T h e P r o p a g a n d a P u r p o s e s of M a n e t h o ' s Libellous S t o r y a b o u t t h e Base O r i g i n of t h e J e w s " [ H e b r e w ] . Mehkarim 3 (1974): 6 9 - 8 4 . M a n e t h o ' s story (CA 1 . 7 3 - 9 0 , 2 2 9 - 5 1 ) is a p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e royal favor s h o w n t o w a r d t h e J e w s in c o n t r a s t t o d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p r a c t i c e d against native E g y p t i a n s . . " T h e R i g h t s of t h e J e w s of A n t i o c h o n t h e O r o n t e s . " PAAJR 4 9 (1982): 69-85. T h e J e w s w e r e a m o n g t h e early f o u n d e r s of A n t i o c h . I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2.39. . " T h e Civic S t a t u s of t h e J e w s in P t o l e m a i c E g y p t . " in Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt. S t u d i e s in Hellenistic Civilization 3 . E d . P e r Bilde et al., 1 0 0 - 2 1 . A a r h u s : A a r h u s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1992. . C o m m e n t a r y o n Contra Apionem (forthcoming). I n c l u d e s extensive b i b l i o g r a p h y . K a t z , P e t e r . " T h e O l d T e s t a m e n t C a n o n in Palestine a n d A l e x a n d r i a . " Z N W 47 (1956): 1 9 1 - 2 1 7 . Discusses (esp. p p . 1 9 4 - 9 6 ) t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of J o s e p h u s t o t h e biblical c a n o n (CA 1.37-43). K a t z e n s t e i n , H a n s J a c o b . "Is t h e r e a S y n c h r o n i s m b e t w e e n t h e R e i g n s of H i r a m a n d S o l o m o n ? " JNES 2 4 (1965): 1 1 6 - 1 7 . O n CA 1.119, 126 a n d t h e d a t i n g of t h e b u i l d i n g of t h e T e m p l e . 2

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

35

K a u t z s c h , E m i l . Biblische Theologe des Alten Testaments. T ü b i n g e n : M o h r , 1 9 1 1 . P p . 5 7 - 5 9 o n " t h e o c r a c y " in J o s e p h u s (CA 2.165). K e e b l e , K . " A Critical S t u d y of J o s e p h u s ' C o n t r a A p i o n e m . " M . P h i l , thesis, O x f o r d , 1991. Kellner, W . " D e Fragmentis Manethonianis q u a e a p u d J o s e p h u m contra A p i o n e m I, 14 et I, 2 6 s u n t . " Diss., M a r b u r g , 1859. O n CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 . K e m p i n s k i , A a r o n . " S o m e O b s e r v a t i o n s o n t h e H y k s o s ( X V t h ) D y n a s t y a n d Its C a n a a n i t e O r i g i n s . " I n Pharaonic Egypt. E d . S. Israelit-Groll, 1 2 9 - 3 7 . J e r u s a l e m : M a g n e s , 1985. O n t h e h i s t o r i c a l k e r n e l b e h i n d t h e f r a g m e n t s of M a n e t h o p r e s e r v e d i n CA 1.89-90. K i p p e n b e r g , H a n s G . Religion und Klassenbildung im antiken Judäa: Eine religionssoziologische Studie zum Verhältnis von Tradition und gesellschafilicher Entwicklung. S U N T 14. G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t , 1978. I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 1.1-2, 6 0 - 6 8 , 1 8 3 . Klein, Gottiieb. Der älteste christliche Katechismus und die jüdische Propaganda-Literatur. Berlin: R e i m e r , 1909. P p . 9 2 - 9 4 a r g u e for a c o m m o n s o u r c e u s e d b y J o s e p h u s (CA 1.187; 2 . 2 0 2 , 2 0 7 I I , 2 1 3 , 216) a n d P h i l o (Hypothetica) in t h e i r s u m m a r i e s of t h e L a w . K o c h , K l a u s . "Is D a n i e l Also A m o n g t h e P r o p h e t s ? " Lnt 3 9 (1985): 1 1 7 - 3 0 . J o s e p h u s includes D a n i e l a m o n g t h e p r o p h e t i c b o o k s (CA 1.37-43). K ö n i g s m a n n , B e r n . L u d . Prolusio historico-critica: narratio Manethoniana de regibus pastoribus iterum Aegypto excidentibus a Flav. Jos. (c. Ap. c. 26 sqq.) argumentis vindicata. Schleswig, 1799. O n CA 1 . 2 2 7 - 8 7 . K o n t o s , K o n s t a n t i n o s S. " S y m m i k t a K r i t i k a . " Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 3 (1879): 274-90. P. 2 8 5 ; at CA 1.164, h e r e a d s p.e9'fuiépav i n s t e a d of K(x6' finéprcav. K o p i d a k i s , M . Z . " I o s e p o s h o m e r i z o n " (= " R é m i n i s c e n c e s d ' H o m è r e c h e z Flavius J o s e p h e . " ) [ G r e e k ; F r e n c h s u m m a r y ] Hellenica 37 (1986): 3 - 2 5 . CA shows t h a t J o s e p h u s k n o w s t h e w o r k s of H o m e r (CA 1.12; 2 . 1 4 , 155, 256). N u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s of h o m e r i c influence in War a n d Ant. K r a l l , J a c o b . " D i e C o m p o s i t i o n u n d die Schicksale des M a n e t h o n i s c h e n G e s h i c h t s w e r k e s . " Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 9 5 (1879): 123— 226. See especially p p . 1 5 2 - 1 6 9 , o n CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 . K r i e g e r , K l a u s - S t e f a n . Geschichtesschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus. T ü b i n g e n : F r a n c k e , 1994. O n J o s e p h u s ' a p o l o g e t i c h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . R e v i s e d v e r s i o n of d o c t o r a l thesis ( U n i versität R e g e n s b u r g , 1990). K r ü g e r , P . Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums. L e i p z i g , 1 9 0 6 . O n J o s e p h u s ' defense of J u d a i s m (including CA) a g a i n s t c h a r g e s p e r t a i n i n g t o r e ligious ideas, belief in G o d , ethics, a n d history. J o s e p h u s ' views a r e t h o r o u g h l y J e w i s h , b u t h e clothes his ideas in t h e g a r b of G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . K ü c h l e r , M a x . Frühjüdische Weishätstraditionen: Z Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. O B O 2 6 . F r e i b u r g : U n i v e r s i t ä t s v e r l a g , 1 9 7 9 . P p . 2 2 2 - 3 5 : J o s e p h u s ' s u m m a r y of t h e L a w (CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 ) s h o w s less G r e e k influence t h a n t h o s e f o u n d in P h i l o ' s Hypothetica a n d P s e u d o - P h o c y l i d e s . K u h n , K a r l G . a n d H a r t m u t S t e g e m a n n . " P r o s e l y t e n . " RE S u p p . 9: 1 2 4 8 - 8 3 . D e s p i t e t h e s t a t e m e n t in CA 2 . 2 0 9 - 1 0 , J e w s d i d n o t w e l c o m e c o n v e r t s , as is evid e n t from t h e p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e h o u s e of H e r o d . L a b i b , P a h o r C . Die Herrschaft der Hyksos in Ägypten und ihr Sturz. G l ü c k s t a d t : J . J . A u g u s t i n , 1936. um

36

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

Discusses J o s e p h u s ' use of M a n e t h o (CA 1.73-105) a n d j o s e p h u s ' t h e o r y t h a t t h e H y k s o s w e r e A r a b s (CA 1.82). L a q u e u r , R i c h a r d . Kritische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch. S t r a s s b u r g : K . J . T r ü b n e r , 1904. P p . 6 2 - 6 4 o n t h e first letter in II M a c e (1.1-9) a n d CA 2 . 5 1 - 5 6 . . " M a n e t h o n . " RE. 1 4 : 1 0 6 0 - 1 1 0 1 . P p . 1 0 6 4 - 1 0 8 0 o n J o s e p h u s ' r e p o r t of M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) . L e b r a m , J . C . H . " A s p e k t e d e r a l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e n K a n o n b i l d u n g . " VT 18 (1968): 173-89. O n CA 1 . 3 8 - 4 1 . L e i b o v i t c h , J . " L e P r o b l è m e d e s H y k s o s et celui d e l ' e x o d e . " IEJ 3 (1953): 9 9 - 1 1 2 . O n CA 1 . 7 5 - 8 3 . L e i m a n , Sid Z . The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. H a m d e n , C o n n . : A r c h o n , 1 9 7 6 . P p . 3 1 - 3 4 o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 3 . J o s e p h u s ' 2 2 b o o k list p r o b a b l y c o r r e s p o n d s to t h e list of 2 4 b o o k s in t h e T a l m u d . H i s w o r d s i m p l y t h a t t h e c a n o n h a s b e e n closed for a long time. . " J o s e p h u s a n d t h e C a n o n of t h e B i b l e . " I n Josephus, the Bible, and History. E d . L o u i s F e l d m a n a n d G o h e i H a t a , 5 0 - 5 8 . D e t r o i t : W a y n e S t a t e University, 1989. O n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 3 . L e i p o l d t , J o h a n n e s a n d Siegfried M o r e n z . Heilige Schriften: Betrachtungen zur Religionsgeschichte der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Leipzig: H a r r a s s o w i t z , 1 9 5 3 . P p . 4 1 - 4 3 o n t h e O T c a n o n a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s (CA 1.37-40); 22 b o o k s corr e s p o n d t o t h e 2 2 letters of t h e H e b r e w a l p h a b e t . L e s h e m , H a y i m . "Flavius o n t h e A n t i q u i t y of t h e J e w s C o m p a r e d w i t h t h e G r e e k s . " [ H e b r e w ] Mahanaim 112 (1967): 9 2 - 9 5 . O n v a r i o u s n a t i o n s ' witness t o t h e a n t i q u i t y of t h e J e w s (CA 1.69-218). Levy, I s i d o r e . " N o t e s d ' h i s t o i r e et d ' é p i g r a p h i e . " REJ 41 (1900): 1 7 4 - 9 5 . P p . 1 8 8 - 9 5 o n i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t A p i o n in CA 2 . 2 8 - 4 1 . . La légende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine. Paris, 1927. O n CA 1.14, 1 6 2 - 6 5 ; 2 . 1 4 , 168. . " T a c i t e et l'origine d u p e u p l e juif." Latomus 5 (1946): 3 3 1 - 4 0 . T a c i t u s followed A p i o n a n d o t h e r a l e x a n d r i a n a u t h o r s (Posidonius, T i m a g e n e s , L y s i m a c h u s ) in r e l a t i n g a n a n t i - S e m i t i c v e r s i o n of t h e E x o d u s . . " L a l é g e n d e d ' O s i r i s et Isis c h e z S é n è q u e . " Latomus 10 (1951): 1 4 7 - 6 2 . P p . 1 6 1 - 6 2 o n t h e influence of A p i o n o n G r e e k a n d L a t i n l i t e r a t u r e . . " P t o l é m é e L a t h y r e et les J u i f s . " HUCA 2 3 II ( 1 9 5 0 - 5 1 ) : 1 2 7 - 3 6 . O n CA 2 . 5 1 - 5 5 . . Recherches esséniennes et pythagoriciennes. G e n è v e - P a r i s , 1 9 6 5 . P p . 5 1 - 5 6 discuss p o i n t s of c o n t a c t b e t w e e n P h i l o a n d CA. P . 3 4 o n CA 2 . 1 7 5 ; p . 5 2 o n CA 2 . 2 0 3 ; p . 51 o n CA 2 . 2 0 5 ; p p . 5 2 - 5 3 o n CA 2 . 2 0 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 . L e w y , H a n s . " H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a Jtepl 'Iouôoucov." ^ A W 31 (1932): 1 1 7 - 1 3 2 . P r o o f of t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e f r a g m e n t of H e c a t a e u s cited b y J o s e p h u s (CA 1.183-204). . " A r i s t o d e a n d t h e J e w i s h S a g e a c c o r d i n g to C l e a r c h u s of Soli." HTR 31 (1938): 205-35. O n CA 1 . 1 7 6 - 8 3 . Cf. S c h u h l (1955). L i n d , M i l l a r d C . " T h e C o n c e p t of Political P o w e r in A n c i e n t I s r a e l . " ASTI1 (196869): 4 - 2 4 . P . 4 o n t h e c o n c e p t " t h e o c r a c y " (CA 2.165). L i n d b l o m , J o h a n n e s . Gesichte und Offenbarungen. Vorstellungen von göttlichen Weisungen und übernatürlichen Erscheinungen im ältesten Christentum. A c t a R e g . Societatis h u m a n i o r u m litterarum Lundensis 65. L u n d : Gleerup, 1968. P p . 1 6 8 - 7 2 o n CA 1 . 4 0 - 4 1 : after t h e r e i g n of A r t a x e r x e s , t h e r e w a s n o precise succession of p r o p h e t s .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

37

L i n t o n , Olof. Synopsis historiae universalis. I n Festskrift udgivet af Kebenhavns Universitet. C o p e n h a g e n , 1957, 1 - 1 4 4 . P p . 7 4 - 8 6 o n J o s e p h u s ' v a l u e for a n c i e n t c h r o n o g r a p h y a n d w o r l d history (on CA 1.6-7, 3 8 - 4 1 , 7 5 - 9 0 , 9 3 - 1 0 1 , 104, 1 0 6 - 2 6 ) . Lipinski, E d w a r d . " B a l i - M a z e r II a n d t h e C h r o n o l o g y of T y r e . " RSO 4 5 (1970): 59-65. O n CA 1 . 1 1 7 - 2 5 . Liver, J a c o b . " T h e C h r o n o l o g y of T y r e at t h e B e g i n n i n g of t h e First M i l l e n n i u m B C . " IEJ 3 (1953): 1 1 3 - 2 0 . O n CA 1.117-26. L u m b r o s o , G i a c o m o . " L e t t e r e al signor professor W i l c k e n . " Arch. Pap.-Forschung 1 (1924): 2 2 1 - 2 2 . O n CA 2 . 6 3 - 6 4 . L u n d s t r ö m , Sven. " J o s e p h u s , C o n t r a A p i o n e m I I , 2 3 3 . " Eranos 51 (1953): 9 9 - 1 0 0 . A r g u e s for r e t a i n i n g t h e w o r d s Xoyov a n d rcapaßiaaGeiev i n CA 2 . 2 3 3 . M a l a m a t , A b r a h a m . " A N e w R e c o r d of N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s P a l e s t i n i a n C a m p a i g n s " [ H e b r e w ] . BIES 20 (1956): 1 7 9 - 8 7 . E T : IEJ 6 (1956): 2 4 6 - 5 6 . T h e B a b y l o n i a n C h r o n i c l e s u p p l e m e n t s J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t (CA 1.134-38) b y p r o v i d i n g precise c h r o n o l o g i c a l details of t h e c a m p a i g n s . M a r c u s , R a l p h . " A n t i s e m i t i s m in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n W o r l d . " I n Essays on Antisemitism. E d . K o p p e l S. P i n s o n , 1 - 2 5 . N e w Y o r k : C o n f e r e n c e o n J e w i s h R e l a t i o n s , 1942 (2d ed., 1946 [1947]), 6 1 - 7 8 . P o p u l a r survey, d e p e n d s largely o n CA. M a t t h e w s , I s a a c G . The Jewish Apologetic to the Grecian World in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Literature. C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , 1914. P p . 1 9 - 2 7 discuss t h e J e w i s h a n s w e r t o a n t i - S e m i t i c attacks; b a s e d largely o n CA. M a z z a , F e d e r i c o . " L e fonti classiche p e r la p i u a n t i c a storia fenicia: G i u s e p p e Flavio e la dinastia dei re di T i r o . " / Congr. intern, di studi fenici 1 : 2 3 9 - 4 2 . O n CA 1 . 1 2 1 - 2 5 . M c K e l v e y , R . J . The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1969. P. 19 o n CA 2 . 1 9 3 ; p . 6 4 o n CA 2 . 1 0 3 - 1 0 9 ; p . 134 o n CA 1.127, 1 9 3 , 2 2 8 ; 2 . 1 2 . M e e k s , W a y n e A. a n d R o b e r t L. W i l k e n . Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era. S B L S B S 13. M i s s o u l a : S c h o l a r s , 1 9 7 8 . P p . 2 - 5 , 3 7 - 3 8 o n J e w i s h rights in A n t i o c h a n d t h e i r status u n d e r S e l e u c i d a n d R o m a n rule (esp. War 7 . 4 4 - 4 5 a n d CA 2.39). M é n a r d , J a c q u e s E. " L e s r a p p o r t s d e P h i l o n a v e c le j u d a ï s m e p a l e s t i n i e n et J o s e p h e . " I n Dictionnaire de la Bible. S u p p l . 7. E d . H e n r i C a z e l l e s a n d A n d r é Feuillet, 1299— 1304. Paris: L e t o u z e y a n d A n é , 1966. P p . 1 2 9 9 - 1 3 0 3 : discussion of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n P h i l o ' s t h o u g h t a n d CA 2; p p . 1 3 0 3 - 1 3 0 4 : Philo a n d J o s e p h u s (CA 1.6-22) h o l d different n o t i o n s of history. J o s e p h u s is i n d e b t e d t o G r e e k h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , while P h i l o de-historicizes J u d a i s m a n d so is closer in this r e s p e c t t o Palestinian J u d a i s m . M e n d e l s , D o r o n . " T h e P o l e m i c a l C h a r a c t e r of M a n e t h o ' s Aegyptiaca." I n Purposes of History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to 2nd Centuries BC. P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m L e u v e n , 24—26 M a y , 1 9 8 8 . S t u d i a H e l l e n i s t i c a 3 0 . E d . H . V e r d i n et al, 9 1 - 1 1 0 . L o v a n i i : U n i v e r s i t a s C a t h o l i c a L o v a n i e n s i s , 1990. M a n e t h o w a s a n E g y p t i a n nationalist b u t n o t a n t i - P t o l e m a i c . H e is n o t d e p e n d e n t o n G r e e k historians. M e s h o r e r , Y a a k o v . Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. T e l Aviv: A m Hassefer, 1967. P. 36 o n t h e h i g h priest Ezekias (CA 1.187). M e y e r , E d u a r d . Aegyptische Chronologic A b h a n d l u n g e n d e r K ö n i g l . P r e u s s . A k a d e m i e d e r Wissenschaften v o m J a h r e 1904. Berlin: R e i m e r , 1904. ( F r e n c h trans.: Chronologie égyptienne. A n n a l e s d u M u s é e G u i m e t . B i b l i o t h è q u e d ' é t u d e s 2 4 . 2 . Paris: L e r o u x , 1912.) c

c

c

38

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

P p . 7 1 - 9 9 ( F r e n c h : 1 0 3 - 3 9 ) o n t h e f r a g m e n t s of M a n e t h o i n j o s e p h u s a n d their use in r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e c h r o n o l o g y of E g y p t i a n dynasties (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 87). H e a r g u e s t h a t J o s e p h u s often m i s r e p r e s e n t s a n d a d d s t o M a n e t h o ' s w o r d s . . Geschichte des Altertums. 4 vols, in 7 p a r t s . S t u t t g a r t : C o t t a ' s e h e , 1 9 5 3 - 5 6 . V o l . 1.2 (1954), p p . 1 2 - 1 3 o n t h e f r a g m e n t s of M a n e t h o in CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ; p . 3 1 4 o n t h e H y k s o s in CA 1 . 7 5 - 9 2 , 2 3 0 - 6 6 . M e y e r , Rudolf. " B e m e r k u n g e n z u m l i t e r a r g e s c h i c h d i c h e n H i n t e r g r u n d d e r K a n o n t h e o r i e des J o s e p h u s . " I n Josephus-Studien. E d . O . Betz, K . H a a c k e r a n d M . H e n g e l , 2 8 5 - 9 9 . G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t , 1974. O n CA 1 . 3 8 - 4 1 . M o d r z e j e w s k i , J o s e p h M . " S u r l'antisémitisme p a ï e n . " I n Pour Léon Poliakov: Le racisme, mythes et sciences. E d . M a u r i c e Ö l e n d e r , 4 1 1 - 3 9 . Brussels: C o m p l e x e , 1 9 8 1 . Discussion of a n t i - S e m i t i s m in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d , i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h Sevenster's w o r k (1975). U s e s CA as e v i d e n c e for t h e history of E g y p t i a n , G r e e k , a n d R o m a n a n t i Semitism. M o m i g l i a n o , A r n a l d o . " I n t o r n o al ' C o n t r o A p i o n e ' . " Rivista di Filologia 5 9 (1931): 485-503. Discusses t h e d e p e n d e n c e of CA o n Philo's Hypothetka a n d J o s e p h u s ' use of M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) . . " U n ' a p o l o g i a del G u i d a i s m o : II C o n t r o A p i o n e di Flavio G i u s e p p e . " Rassegna mensile di Israel 6 ( 1 9 3 1 - 3 2 ) : 3 3 - 4 1 . ( R e p r i n t in idem, Terzo Contributo alia Storia degli Studi Classici e del mondo antico. V o l . 1. R o m a : E d i z i o n i di S t o r i a e L e t t e r a t u r a , 1966, 5 1 3 - 2 2 ) . A r g u e s t h a t in CA, J o s e p h u s h a s h e l l e n i z e d J e w i s h theology. . Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization. C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 7 5 . P . 77 o n CA 1 . 1 7 2 - 7 4 (Choirilos); p p . 7 7 - 7 8 o n CA 1.311; p . 9 4 o n CA 2 . 1 1 2 ; p p . 1 2 1 - 2 o n CA 2 . 7 9 , 1 4 5 - 4 8 . . "Juifs et G r e c s . " I n M Juif ni Grec: entretiens sur le racisme. E d . L é o n Poliakov, 4 7 - 6 3 . Paris: M o u t o n , 1978. S u r v e y of J e w i s h - G r e e k relations, b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n CA. J o s e p h u s followed G r e e k m o d e l s of a p o l o g e t i c r h e t o r i c . M o n t e t , P i e r r e . " L e roi A m e n o p h i s et les I m p u r e s . " REA 4 2 (1940): 2 6 3 - 6 9 . O n CA 1 . 2 2 7 - 6 6 . . Le drame d'Avaris: Essai sur la pénétration des Sémites en Egypte. Paris: G e u t h n e r , 1 9 4 1 . P p . 1 7 3 - 1 7 7 o n CA 1 . 2 2 7 - 7 7 . Morgenstern, Julian. " T h e K i n g - G o d a m o n g the Western Semites a n d the M e a n i n g of E p i p h a n e s . " VT 10 (1960): 1 3 8 - 9 7 . O n CA 1.119. M o r i n , H e n r y . " C o n j e c t u r e s s u r u n p a s s a g e d e J o s e p h e . " Histoires de Vacad. royale des lnscr. et Bel.-let. (Paris) I (1736), 1 4 2 - 4 7 . O n CA 2.79ff. M o r t l e y , R a o u l . " L ' h i s t o r i o g r a p h i e p r o f a n e et les p è r e s . " I n Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique. Paris: E . d e B u c c a r d , 1978, 3 1 5 - 2 7 . P p . 3 1 9 - 2 4 o n M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) a n d H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 ; 2.43). M o t z o , B a c c h i s i o . " L e 'YjioGeTiicâ di F i l o n e . " Atti délia R. Accademia délie Scienze di Torino 4 7 ( 1 9 1 1 - 1 2 ) : 5 5 6 - 7 3 . Discusses t h e similarity b e t w e e n Philo's Hypothetka a n d CA. . "Il m x à 'IouÔoucov di A p i o n e . " Atti délia R. Accademia délie Scienze di Torino 4 8 (1912-13): 4 5 9 - 6 8 . O n t h e n a t u r e a n d c o n t e n t s of A p i o n ' s w o r k of anti-Jewish p r o p a g a n d a . M o v e r s , F r a n z C a r l . Loci quidam historiae canonis Veteris Testamenti illustrât. Vratislaviae: Freund, [1842]. P p . 2 6 - 3 2 o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 2 .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

39

Müller, J o h a n n Georg. "Kritische U n t e r s u c h u n g der taciteischen Berichte ü b e r d e n U r s p r u n g d e r J u d e n : Hist. V , 2ff." T M f (1843): H e f t 3 , p p . 8 9 3 - 9 5 8 . I n c l u d e s discussion of J o s e p h u s ' e v i d e n c e in CA c o n c e r n i n g J e w i s h origins. P p . 9 0 1 , 5 2 o n CA 1 . 1 6 1 - 2 1 2 (Clearchus); p p . 9 0 7 - 9 0 8 , 9 1 1 o n CA 2 . 7 9 - 8 8 , 1 4 5 - 5 0 (Apollonius M o l o n ) ; p . 9 1 5 o n CA 1 . 3 0 4 - 2 0 (Lysimachus); p . 9 1 6 o n CA 2 . 8 - 2 7 (Apion); p . 9 2 3 o n CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 3 0 3 ( C h a e r e m o n ) ; p p . 9 2 4 - 2 5 o n CA 1 . 7 3 - 9 2 , 2 2 7 50 (Manetho). . Des Flavius Josephus Schrift Gegen den Apion, Text und Erklärung aus dem Nachlass, von J. G. Müller. E d . C h r i s t o p h J o h a n n e s R i g g e n b a c h a n d C o n r a d v o n O r e l l i . Basel: B a h n m a i e r , 1877. T e x t of CA w i t h c o m m e n t a r y . A c c o r d i n g t o A. v o n G u t s c h m i d , t h e w o r k is " t o ­ tally worthless a n d trivial" (Kleine Schriften 4.382). M u r r a y , O s w y n . " H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a a n d P h a r a o n i c K i n g s h i p . " JEA 5 6 (1970): 141-71. I n CA, J o s e p h u s h a s forged t h e f r a g m e n t s of H e c a t a e u s . N a e k i u s , A u g u s t F e r d i n a n d . , ed. Choirili Samii quae supersunt collegit et illustravit de Choerili Samii aetate vita et poesi aliisque Choerilis. Leipzig: W e i d m a n n , 1817. P p . 1 3 0 - 5 1 o n t h e f r a g m e n t of C h o e r i l u s in CA 1.173. N a z z a r o , A n t o n i o V . " R e c e n t i studi filioniani ( 1 9 6 3 - 1 9 7 0 ) . " Vichiana 1 (1972): 7 6 125; 2 (1973): 1 1 4 - 5 5 . ( R e p r i n t ; N a p o l i , s. a. [1973]). P p . 7 6 - 7 7 (reprint) p r o v i d e a c o m p a r i s o n of CA w i t h P h i l o ' s Hypothetica. Nestle, E b e r h a r d . " M i s c e l l e n . " Z 22 (1902): 1 7 0 - 7 2 . P p . 1 7 1 - 7 2 o n CA 1.69 (on t h e lack of r e f e r e n c e t o t h e G r e e k s in t h e O T ) . . " M i s c e l l e n . " < W 2 6 (1906): 2 8 1 - 9 2 . P. 2 8 4 o n CA 1.82 (Hyksos). N i e b u h r , C a r l . Die Chronologe der Geschichte Israels, Aegyptens, Babyloniens and Assyriens von 2000-700 v. Chr. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1896. P p . 3 4 - 3 8 o n CA 1 . 1 0 6 - 2 6 . J o s e p h u s d i d n o t use M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s , b u t a n e p i t o m e of his history. Niese, Benedikt. Flavii Iosephi Opera edidit et apparatu critico instruxit. 1 vols. V o l . 5: De Iudaeorum vetustate sive Contra Apionem libri II. Berlin, 1 8 8 9 . G r e e k text of CA with extensive critical a p p a r a t u s . I n d e x in vol. 7. O e s t e r l e y , W . O . E., e d . Judaism and Christianity I: The Age of Transition. N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 1937. ( R e p r i n t , N e w Y o r k : K t a v , 1969). P p . I X - L X X , " P r o l e g o m e n o n " b y Ellis R i v k i n ; discussion of J o s e p h u s o n T o r a h piety, i n c l u d i n g CA 2 . 1 7 8 - 8 1 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 2 8 - 3 5 , 2 7 1 - 7 3 , 2 7 7 - 7 8 , 2 9 1 - 9 5 . P e d e r s e n , Sigfred. " D i e K a n o n f r a g e als historisches u n d t h e o l o g i s c h e s P r o b l e m . " ST 31 (1977): 8 3 - 1 3 6 . P p . 9 6 - 9 7 o n CA 1.42: " n e i t h e r a d d i n g n o r o m i t t i n g " is a n ideal i n t e n t i o n , n o t reality. Pefiuela, J o a q u i n M . " L a inscripcion asiria I M 5 5 6 4 4 y l a c r o n o l o g i a d e los reyes d e T i r o . " Sefarad 13 (1953): 2 1 7 - 3 7 ; 14 (1954): 3 - 4 2 . O n CA 1 . 1 1 7 - 1 2 6 . Petersen, H a n s . " R e a l a n d Alleged L i t e r a r y Projects of J o s e p h u s , " AJP 7 9 (1958): 259-74. A r g u e s t h a t CA is t h e p r o j e c t e d w o r k o n t h e o l o g y a n d h a l a k a h of w h i c h J o s e p h u s speaks in Antiquities. Pfeiffer, R o b e r t H . " H e b r e w s a n d G r e e k s b e f o r e A l e x a n d e r . " JBL 5 6 (1937): 9 1 101. O n J o s e p h u s ' references t o G r e e k s before Aristotle w h o m e n t i o n J e w s (CA 1 . 1 6 8 A W

Pfister, Friedrich. Alexander der Große in den Offenbarungen der Griechen, Juden, Mohammedaner und Christen. Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1956 ( R e p r i n t e d in idem, Kleine Schriften zum Alex­ anderroman. B e i t r ä g e z u r klassichen Philologie 6 1 . M e i s e n h e i m a m G l a n : H a i n , 1976, 3 0 1 - 4 7 ) .

40

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

P p . 2 4 - 3 5 (Kleine Schriften, 3 1 9 - 2 7 ) o n J o s e p h u s ' v a r i o u s r e p o r t s a b o u t A l e x a n d e r , i n c l u d i n g CA 1.192, 2 0 0 - 2 0 4 . Pilhofer, Peter. PRESBYTERION KREITTON: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christilichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte. W U N T 2 . 3 9 . T ü b i n g e n : M o h r , 1990. P p . 1 9 3 - 2 0 6 o n t h e " p r o o f f r o m a n t i q u i t y " in CA. Poliakov, L é o n . Histoire de l'antisémitisme. Vol. 1: Du Christ aux juifs de cour. Paris: C a l m a n L é v y , 1 9 5 5 . ( E T : The History of Anti-Semitism. Vol. 1: From the Time of Christ to the Court Jews. N e w Y o r k : V a n g u a r d , 1 9 6 5 ; r e p r i n t , N e w Y o r k : S c h o c k e n , 1974). P p . 1 9 - 3 2 ( E T : 3 - 1 6 ) o n a n t i s e m i t i s m in p a g a n antiquity; s u m m a r y of t h e c h a r g e s of A p i o n a n d o t h e r a u t h o r s cited in CA. P o n d , E n o c h . " J o s e p h u s a n d A p i o n . " Methodist Quarterly Review 5 2 (1870): 274—85. I n c l u d e s a s u m m a r y of A p i o n ' s a t t a c k s o n t h e J e w s a n d J o s e p h u s ' defense. P r é a u x , C l a i r e . L'économie royale des Lagides. Bruxelles: E d i t i o n d e la F o n d a t i o n é g y p t o l o g i q u e r e i n e E l i s a b e t h , 1939. S t u d y of t h e e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s in t h e P t o l e m a i c r e a l m , 3 0 5 - 3 0 B C E . P p . 4 0 7 4 0 8 o n CA 2 . 5 8 ; p . 150 o n CA 2 . 6 3 . Pucci B e n Zeev, M i r i a m . " T h e Reliability of J o s e p h u s Flavius: T h e C a s e of H e c a t a e u s ' a n d M a n e t h o ' s A c c o u n t s of J e w s a n d J u d a i s m : Fifteen Y e a r s of C o n t e m p o r a r y R e s e a r c h ( 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 9 0 ) . " JSJ 2 4 (1993): 2 1 5 - 2 3 4 . O n CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 4 ( H e c a t a e u s ) a n d CA 1 . 7 3 - 9 1 , 9 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 8 - 5 2 ( M a n e t h o ) . A c c e p t s J o s e p h u s ' s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e is q u o t i n g these a u t h o r s , a l t h o u g h h e m a y h a v e adapted their accounts. P u e c h , A i m é . " U n e é d i t i o n n o u v e l l e d u ' C o n t r e A p i o n ' d e J o s e p h e . " Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé 27 (1930): 2 5 - 3 1 . O n R e i n a c h a n d B l u m ' s e d i t i o n of CA (1930) a n d t h e state of J o s e p h u s r e s e a r c h . R a d i n , M a x . The Jews among the Greeks and Romans. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1 9 1 5 . P p . 9 2 - 9 8 o n H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 ; 2.43); p p . 9 9 - 1 0 3 o n M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) ; p p . 1 9 1 - 2 0 9 o n a n t i s e m i t i s m in CA. R a j a k , T e s s a . "Flavius J o s e p h u s : J e w i s h H i s t o r y a n d t h e G r e e k W o r l d . " 2 Vols. P h . D . diss., O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. A p p e n d i x V I . " P o s i d o n i u s ' s V i e w of J u d a i s m : t h e E v i d e n c e of t h e Contra ApionemP R a m s a y , W i l l i a m . M . " T h e J e w s in t h e G r a e c o - A s i a t i c C i t i e s . " Expos VI 5 (1902): 19-33. I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2 . 3 3 - 4 7 . R e d f o r d , D o n a l d B . History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1967. P p . 2 0 9 - 1 0 : o n t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n b e t w e e n M a n e t h o (CA 1.231) a n d Ant 1.100— 101. . " T h e H y k s o s I n v a s i o n in H i s t o r y a n d T r a d i t i o n . " Or 3 9 (1970): 1 - 5 1 . O n CA 1 . 7 5 - 8 3 . R e i n a c h , T h é o d o r e . Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaïsme. Paris: L e r o u x , 1 8 9 5 . ( R e p r i n t , H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1963). C o l l e c t i o n of G r e e k a n d L a t i n a u t h o r s o n J u d a i s m , t o g e t h e r w i t h translations in F r e n c h a n d b r i e f n o t e s . N o w s u p e r s e d e d b y j a c o b y ( 1 9 2 3 - 5 8 ) a n d S t e r n (1974—84). . " N o t e s s u r le s e c o n d livre d u C o n t r e A p i o n d e J o s e p h e . " I n Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann. B r e s l a u , 1900, 1 3 - 1 5 . T e x t - c r i t i c a l a n d exegetical n o t e s o n CA 2 . 1 1 , 2 2 , 8 2 . R e i n a c h , T h é o d o r e a n d L . B l u m . Flavius Josephe contre Apion: Texte établi et annoté. P a r i s : S o c i é t é d ' é d i t i o n " L e s belles l e t t r e s , " 1930. ( R e p r i n t , 1970). T e x t of CA, G r e e k a n d F r e n c h o n facing p a g e s . Brief n o t e s . R e v e l , B e r n a r d . " S o m e A n t i - T r a d i t i o n a l L a w s of J o s e p h u s . " JQR 14 ( 1 9 2 3 - 2 4 ) : 2 9 3 301. I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2 . 2 0 7 .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

41

Riskin, Steven. " T h e H a l a k h a h in J o s e p h u s as Reflected in Against Apion a n d The Life." M . A . diss., Y e s h i v a U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. I n c l u d e s discussion of m a r r i a g e rules for priests (CA 1.31, 3 3 , 35) a n d rites for t h e d e a d (CA 2.205) in J o s e p h u s a n d R a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e . Rivkin, Ellis. The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation. N e w Y o r k , 1 9 7 1 . P p . 5 4 - 5 7 o n CA 2 . 2 1 7 - 1 9 ; 2 7 1 - 7 3 ; 3 2 8 - 3 5 . R o k e a h , D a v i d . Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict. S t u d i a Post-Biblica 3 3 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1982. P p . 1 6 8 - 7 2 s u m m a r i z e A p i o n ' s a n t i - S e m i t i c a t t a c k s a n d J o s e p h u s ' a n s w e r (CA 2.126-34). R o s e n , H a i i m B. "Asses' B o n e s " [ H e b r e w ] . Leshonenu 17 ( 1 9 5 0 - 5 1 ) : 1 7 4 - 7 6 . T h e description of H o m e r ' s w o r k s as 'azemoth hamor in m. Tad. 4 . 6 is a p l a y o n w o r d s o n aaixaxcov (CA 1.12). R o s e n b l o o m , J o s e p h R . Conversion to Judaism: From the Biblical Period to the Present. C i n c i n n a t i : H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e Press, 1 9 7 8 . P p . 4 7 - 4 8 o n J o s e p h u s ' a t t i t u d e t o w a r d p r o s e l y t i s m (CA 2 . 2 1 0 , 261). R o t h , L e a . " C h a e r e m o n . " Encjud 5 : 3 1 7 - 1 8 . O n CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 3 0 3 . R o w t o n , M . B. " T h e D a t e of t h e F o u n d i n g of S o l o m o n ' s T e m p l e . " BASOR 119 (1950): 2 0 - 2 3 . J o s e p h u s ' citation of M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s w i t h r e g a r d t o H i r a m k i n g of T y r e (CA 1.117-20) b r e a k s off at t h e p o i n t w h e r e o n e w o u l d e x p e c t a s t a t e m e n t a b o u t the Temple. . " M a n e t h o ' s D a t e for R a m e s s e s I I . " JEA 3 4 (1948): 5 7 - 7 4 . M a n e t h o ' s c h r o n o l o g y is a c c u r a t e . P . 5 8 : t h e figures for t h e year-fractions of reigns in CA a r e n o t t r u s t w o r t h y {CA 1.98). R ü h l , F r a n z . " D i e lyrische Königsliste des M e n a n d e r v o n E p h e s u s . " Rheinisches Museum 4 8 (1893): 5 6 5 - 7 8 . O n CA 1 . 1 1 6 - 2 7 . R y l e , H e r b e r t E. The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture. L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1 8 9 2 . P p . 1 5 8 - 6 6 o n t h e difficulty of r e c o n c i l i n g CA 1.42 w i t h t h e late c a n o n i z a t i o n of S o n g of S o n g s a n d Ecclesiastes. S a n d m e l , S a m u e l . Judaism and Christian Beginnings. N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d , 1 9 7 8 . P p . 2 6 7 - 7 7 p r e s e n t a s u m m a r y of CA. . Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d , 1 9 7 9 . P p . 2 3 - 2 4 a r g u e t h a t t h e r e is n o d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n P h i l o a n d CA 2. dos Santos, R u b e n s . Defensa dos Judeus contra Âpion e outros caluniadores. P u b l . d o D e p a r t . d e L e t r a s clâsicas d a F a c . d e L e t r a s d a U n i v . federal d e M i n a s G é r a i s V I Belo H o r i z o n t e , 1986. I n t r o d u c t i o n , t r a n s l a t i o n , n o t e s o n CA. v o n S a r g a n s , A n t o n H e n n e . Manetho's, die Origines unserer Geschichte und Chronologie. G o t h a : P e r t h e s , 1865. P p . 4 , 9 4 , 9 6 , 152 c o n s i d e r f r a g m e n t s of M a n e t h o in CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 . P p . 1 4 8 - 5 7 t r e a t M o s e s in M a n e t h o . S a r o w y , W a l t h e r . Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte König Salomos. K ö n i g s b e r g : L e u p o l d , 1900. P p . 4 4 - 4 8 c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t of S o l o m o n w i t h t h e Bible's a c c o u n t ; p p . 4 8 - 5 3 treat M e n a n d e r ' s a n d D i o s ' r e p o r t s o n S o l o m o n (CA 1.113-16). S c h a l k , A b r a h a m . " A p i o n . " Encjud 3 : 1 7 8 . A p i o n w a s influential in s p r e a d i n g a n t i - J e w i s h p r o p a g a n d a ; t h u s t h e n e e d for J o s e p h u s t o refute h i m at l e n g t h . Schaller, B e r n d t . " H e k a t a i o s v o n A b d e r a ü b e r die J u d e n : Z u r F r a g e d e r E c h t h e i t u n d d e r D a t i e r u n g . ^ A W 5 4 (1963): 1 5 - 3 1 .

42

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

T h e f r a g m e n t s o f H e c a t a e u s in CA ( 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 ; 2.43) a r e i n a u t h e n t i c , a c r e a t i o n of J e w i s h m i s s i o n a r y l i t e r a t u r e (similar t o t h e Letter of Aristeas). S c h ä u b l i n , C h r i s t o p h . " J o s e p h u s u n d die G r i e c h e n . " Hermes 110 (1982): 3 1 6 - 4 1 . Discusses J o s e p h u s ' v i e w of t h e G r e e k s in CA a n d his d e b t t o P l a t o , p a r t i c u l a r l y for t h e i d e a of t h e o c r a c y (CA 2.165). Scheller, M e i n r a d . "aaßßcb u n d a a ß ß a i c o a i c . " Glotta 3 4 (1955): 2 9 8 - 3 0 0 . O n CA 2 . 2 1 . S c h m i d , W i l h e l m a n d O t t o Stählin. Wilhelm von Christs Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur, p a r t I I . 6 t h e d . M ü n c h e n : Beck, 1 9 2 0 - 2 4 . P p . 4 3 7 - 3 8 o n A p i o n (CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) . S c h m i d t , V a l d e m a r . " O n Israels B o r n s U d g a n g af A e g y p t e n . " Festskrift i anledning qf Professor David Simonsens 70-aarige fedselsdag. E d . J . Fischer et ai, 3 9 - 7 6 . C o p e n h a g e n : Hertz, 1923. O n CA 1.97, 2 3 1 , 2 3 7 - 5 0 . S c h o e d e l , W ü l i a m R . " I g n a t i u s a n d t h e A r c h i v e s . " HTR 71 (1978): 9 7 - 1 0 6 . P p . 9 9 - 1 0 1 : I n s p e a k i n g of t h e H e b r e w s ' c a r e w i t h t h e i r p u b l i c r e c o r d s , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of S c r i p t u r a l r e c o r d s , such as g e n e ­ alogies, c o n c e i v e d of as a r c h i v e s (CA 1.29). S c h u h l , P . - M . " S u r u n f r a g m e n t d e C l é a r q u e : Les p r e m i e r s r a p p o r t s e n t r e savants g r e c s et j u i f s . " RHR 147 (1955): 1 2 4 - 2 6 . O n CA 1 . 1 7 6 - 8 3 . Cf. L e w y (1938). S c h u l z e , L u d w i g T . De fontibus, ex quibus historia Hycsorum haurienda sit. Berlin: Schlawitz, 1858. P p . 4 - 3 2 o n CA 1 . 7 5 - 9 0 . J o s e p h u s ' v e r s i o n is t h e m o s t reliable of t h e five surviv­ i n g r e c e n s i o n s of M a n e t h o . S c h ü r e r , E m i l . The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC to AD 135). 3 vols, in 4 p a r t s . R e v . a n d e d . b y G e z a V e r m e s et al. E d i n b u r g h : T & T Clark, 1973-87. V o l . 3 , p p . 5 9 4 - 6 0 9 o n anti-Jewish w r i t e r s cited in CA; p p . 6 0 9 - 1 6 o n J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c s , i n c l u d i n g a fairly extensive t r e a t m e n t of CA; p p . 6 7 1 - 7 7 o n P s e u d o H e c a t a e u s (including CA 1.193; 2.43). B i b l i o g r a p h y . S c h w a r t z , E . " C h a i r e m o n . " RE 3 : 2 0 2 5 - 2 7 . O n t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r a n d g r a m m a t i c i a n cited b y J o s e p h u s in CA 1 . 2 8 8 303. S c h w a r t z , J a c q u e s . " L e ' C y c l e d e P e t o u b a s t i s ' et les c o m m e n t a i r e s égyptiens d e l ' E x o d e . " BIFAO 4 9 (1949): 6 7 - 8 3 . O n M a n e t h o ' s a c c o u n t of t h e e x o d u s as given in CA b o o k I. S c h w a r t z , S e t h . " J o s e p h u s a n d J u d a i s m from 70 t o 100 of t h e C o m m o n E r a . " P h . D . diss., C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 8 5 . P p . 1 4 3 - 6 6 o n p a g a n G r e e k w r i t e r s u s e d b y J o s e p h u s in CA. P p . 1 6 6 - 7 8 o n G r e c o - J e w i s h w r i t e r s u s e d b y J o s e p h u s in CA. T h e s u m m a r y of t h e L a w in CA 2 . 1 5 1 - 2 8 6 d e p e n d s o n P h i l o ' s Hypothetica o r a c o m m o n s o u r c e . . Josephus and Judean Politics. C o l u m b i a S t u d i e s in t h e Classical T r a d i t i o n 18. L e i d e n : Brill, 1990. R e v i s e d v e r s i o n of dissertation ( p r e v i o u s entry), a l t h o u g h w i t h less a t t e n t i o n given t o CA. P . 5 2 : J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y d i d n o t r e a d Philo's works; p . 5 2 n. 104, J o s e p h u s a n d P h i l o ' s Hypothetica p r o b a b l y s h a r e a c o m m o n s o u r c e . P p . 8 8 - 9 5 , "Priest­ h o o d a n d C u l t in AJ a n d CAp" P . 8 9 n . 119 discusses CA 1 . 3 0 - 4 6 , m a r r i a g e rules for priests. S c h w y z e r , H a n s Rudolf. Chairemon. Leipzig: H a r r a s s o w i t z , 1932. P p . 5 7 - 5 9 o n CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 9 2 . Segal, M o s e s H . " T h e P r o m u l g a t i o n of t h e A u t h o r i t a t i v e T e x t of t h e H e b r e w Bible." JBL 72 (1953): 3 5 - 4 7 . CA 1.42 p r o v e s t h a t t h e text w a s r e g a r d e d as u n c h a n g e a b l e .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

43

Segré, A. " T h e S t a t u s of t h e J e w s in P t o l e m a i c a n d R o m a n E g y p t : N e w L i g h t f r o m t h e P a p y r i . " JSS 6 (1944): 3 7 5 - 4 0 0 . I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2 . 3 5 - 3 9 , 6 1 . Sevenster, J a n N . The Roots ofPagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World. L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 7 5 . A n t i - S e m i t i s m in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d a l t e r n a t e d w i t h a t t r a c t i o n t o J u d a i s m a n d proselytism. Shotwell, J a m e s T . The History of History. V o l . 1. R e v . e d . N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a University Press, 1939. P p . 8 5 - 8 7 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 o n t h e f r a g m e n t s of M a n e t h o in J o s e p h u s (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 228-87). S h u t t , R o b e r t J a m e s H . " J o s e p h u s in L a t i n : A R e t r o v e r s i o n i n t o G r e e k a n d a n English T r a n s l a t i o n . " JSP 1 (1987): 7 9 - 9 3 . R e t r o v e r s i o n of CA 2 . 5 1 - 1 1 3 from C a s s i o d o r u s ' L a t i n v e r s i o n of J o s e p h u s , w i t h English t r a n s l a t i o n o n facing p a g e s . Siegel, J o n a t h a n P . The Severus Scroll and lQIs . M a s o r e t i c S t u d i e s 2. M i s s o u l a : S c h o l ­ ars, 1975. P p . 7 2 - 7 3 : CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 2 give a n ideal p i c t u r e , for t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s existed e v e n in t h e T e m p l e texts (b. Sof. 6.4). Silver, D a n i e l J . " M o s e s a n d t h e H u n g r y B i r d s . " JQR 6 4 (1973): 1 2 3 - 5 3 . O n CA 1 . 2 3 6 - 5 0 . S i m o n , M a r c e l . " A p r o p o s d e la L e t t r e d e C l a u d e a u x A l e x a n d r i n s . " Bulletin de la faculté des lettres de Strassbourg (1943): 1 7 5 - 8 3 . ( R e p r i n t , idem, Recherches d'histoire judéochrétienne. Paris: M o u t o n , 1962, 2 0 - 2 9 ) . P p . 2 4 , 2 7 - 2 8 (reprint) o n CA 2 . 3 3 , 4 2 , 7 2 . Smallwood, Edith M a r y . " T h e J e w s in Egypt a n d C y r e n a i c a d u r i n g the Ptolemaic a n d R o m a n P e r i o d s . " I n Africa in Classical Antiquity. E d . L. A . T h o m p s o n a n d J . F e r g u s o n , 1 1 0 - 3 1 . I b a d a n : I b a d a n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. J o s e p h u s ' claim (CA 2 . 3 5 , 42) t h a t A l e x a n d e r i n c l u d e d J e w s i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f A l e x a n d r i a in g r a t i t u d e for t h e i r h e l p in t h e E g y p t i a n c a m p a i g n is p r o b a b l y a fabrication. S m i t h , J o n a t h a n Z . " F e n c e s a n d N e i g h b o r s : S o m e C o n t o u r s of E a r l y J u d a i s m . " I n Approaches to Ancient Judaism 2. E d . W i l l i a m S c o t t G r e e n , 1 - 2 5 . C h i c o : S c h o l a r s , 1980. I n c l u d e s discussion of c i r c u m c i s i o n in CA 2 . 1 4 1 , 144. S m i t h , M o r t o n . " T h e I m a g e of G o d : N o t e s o n t h e H e l l e n i z a t i o n of J u d a i s m , w i t h Especial R e f e r e n c e t o G o o d e n o u g h ' s W o r k o n J e w i s h S y m b o l s . " BJRL 4 0 ( 1 9 5 7 58): 4 7 3 - 5 1 2 . P. 5 0 0 o n CA 2 . 1 1 2 - 2 0 (the e p i p h a n y of Apollos). S m i t h , W i l l i a m . R . The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. E d i n b u r g h : Black, 1 8 8 1 . 2 d ed., L o n d o n , Black, 1892. ( G e r m a n T r a n s . : Das alte Testament: Seine Entstehung und Überlieferung. F r e i b u r g : M o h r , 1894). P p . 1 4 9 - 5 2 (2d ed., 1 6 3 - 6 6 ) o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 0 . Sperling, A r t h u r G . Apion der Grammatiker und sein Verhältnis zum Judentum, ein Beitrag zu einer Einleitung in die Schriften des Josephus. ( I n Program des Gymnasiums zum heiligen Kreuz in Dresden p p . iii-xii). D r e s d e n , 1886. O n A p i o n ' s life a n d anti-Jewish writings (CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 ) . Speyer, W . " Z u d e n V o r w ü r f e n d e r H e i d e n g e g e n die C h r i s t e n . " JAC 6 (1963): 129-136. I n c l u d e s discussion of t h e "cult of t h e a s s , " CA 2 . 7 9 - 8 0 . Stählin, Felix. Der Antisemitismus des Altertums in seiner Entstehung und Entwicklung. Basel: Lendorff, 1 9 0 5 . Pp. 4 - 7 on Hecataeus; p p . 9 - 1 6 on M a n e t h o ; p p . 2 3 - 2 5 on Apollonius Molon; p p . 2 8 - 2 9 o n L y s i m a c h u s ; p p . 2 9 - 3 2 o n A p i o n ' s a n t i - S e m i t i c a t t a c k in CA 2 . 2 144; p . 4 8 o n C h a e r e m o n . a

44

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

Sterling, G r e g o r y E . " L u k e - A c t s a n d A p o l o g e t i c H i s t o r i o g r a p h y . " SBL 1989 Seminar Papers. E d . D a v i d J . Lull, 3 2 3 - 4 2 . A t l a n t a : S c h o l a r s , 1989. P p . 334—36 o n j o s e p h u s ' CA in t h e context of t h e g e n r e , "apologetic historiography." . Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. N o v T S u p 6 4 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1992. P p . 5 9 - 1 0 2 o n H e k a t a i o s ; p p . 1 0 3 - 1 3 6 o n Berossos a n d M a n e t h o n ; p p . 1 3 7 - 2 2 5 o n Hellenistic J e w i s h H i s t o r i a n s (Eusebios; A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor; D e m e t r i o s ; A r t a panos; Pseudo-Eupolemos; Eupolemos). Stern, M e n a h e m . " A n Egyptian-Greek Prophecy a n d the Tradition about the Ex­ p u l s i o n of t h e J e w s f r o m E g y p t in t h e H i s t o r y of C h a e r e m o n " [ H e b r e w ] . %ion 2 8 (1963): 2 2 3 - 2 8 . O n CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 3 0 3 . . " C h r o n o l o g i c a l S e q u e n c e of t h e First R e f e r e n c e s t o J e w s in G r e e k L i t e r a t u r e " [ H e b r e w ] . £«wi 3 4 (1969): 1 2 1 - 2 5 . T h e o p h r a s t u s is earlier t h a n H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ' s f r a g m e n t s in CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 ; 2.43. . Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. J e r u s a l e m , 1974—84. I n c l u d e s i n t r o d u c t i o n s , t r a n s l a t i o n s , c o m m e n t a r y . A u t h o r s cited b y J o s e p h u s in CA a r e f o u n d i n vol. 1, e x c e p t for C h o e r i l u s of S a m o s , f o u n d in vol. 3, p p . 5 - 7 . P a g e r e f e r e n c e s in S t e r n t o i n d i v i d u a l a u t h o r s cited in CA m a y b e f o u n d in S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s article in t h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e . S t e r n c o n c l u d e s t h a t a n t i - S e m i t i s m w a s c e n t e r e d in A l e x a n d r i a ; intellectuals in o t h e r p a r t s of t h e G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d w h e r e t h e r e w e r e l a r g e n u m b e r s of J e w s w e r e n o t necessarily a n t i - S e m i t i c . . " T h e J e w s in G r e e k a n d L a t i n L i t e r a t u r e . " I n The Jewish People in the First Century. C R I N T 1.2. E d . S. Safrai a n d M . S t e r n , 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 5 9 . P h i l a d e l p h i a 1976. P p . 1 1 0 8 - 0 9 ; f r a g m e n t s of H e c a t a e u s in CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 ; 2 . 4 3 a r e a u t h e n t i c . S t e r n , M e n a h e m a n d O . M u r r a y . " H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a a n d T h e o p h r a s t u s o n J e w s a n d E g y p t i a n s . " JEA 5 9 (1973): 1 5 9 - 6 8 . O n CA 1 . 1 6 6 - 6 7 , 1 7 6 - 8 2 , 1 8 3 - 2 0 4 . Strieker, B . H . " A s i n a r i i I . " OMRO 4 6 (1965): 5 2 - 7 5 . O n CA 2 . 7 9 - 8 0 ; t h e c h a r g e of v e n e r a t i n g a n ass s t e m m e d from E g y p t i a n x e n o ­ p h o b i a t o w a r d J e w s . It h a d its origin in t h e association of t h e ass with t h e E g y p ­ t i a n g o d S e t h , t h e g o d of s t r a n g e r s . S u n d b e r g , A l b e r t C . The Old Testament of the Early Church. H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d ­ ies 2 0 . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964. P p . 3 2 , 4 2 , 6 7 , 6 9 - 7 2 , 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 2 7 - 2 8 , 132, 134 o n j o s e p h u s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e c a n o n (CA 1.38-41). T c h e r i k o v e r , V i c t o r . "Jewish A p o l o g e t i c L i t e r a t u r e R e c o n s i d e r e d . " Eos 4 8 (1956): 169-93. I n g e n e r a l , J e w i s h p r o p a g a n d a w a s d i r e c t e d t o t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y , since m a s s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h G e n t i l e r e a d e r s w o u l d h a v e b e e n impossible, especially in light of G e n t i l e hostility t o t h e J e w s . J o s e p h u s is a n e x c e p t i o n , w r i t i n g Ant. for G e n t i l e s (Ant. 1.5) a n d CA t o a n s w e r c h a r g e s of a n t i - S e m i t e s (CA 1.3). . Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1959. P p . 3 6 1 - 6 4 o n M a n e t h o ' s a n t i - S e m i t i c a c c o u n t of t h e E x o d u s (CA 1.227-87); p p . 3 6 5 - 6 7 o n t h e b l o o d libel a c c o u n t in CA 2 . 8 9 - 1 0 2 . T e i x i d o r , J a v i e r . The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 1 . 1 1 8 - 1 1 9 , o n j o s e p h u s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d p a g a n deities. T e r i a n , A b r a h a m . " S o m e S t o c k A r g u m e n t s for t h e M a g n a n i m i t y of t h e L a w in Hellenistic J e w i s h A p o l o g e t i c s . " I n Jewish Law Association Studies I. E d . B e r n a r d S. Jackson, 1 4 1 - 5 0 . Chico: Scholars, 1985. P p . 1 4 2 - 4 6 o n t h e l a w of t h e n e s t in P h i l o ' s Hypothetica 7.9 a n d CA 2 . 2 1 3 - 1 4 as a n illustration of t h e h u m a n i t y of t h e L a w .

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

45

T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . Josephus: The Life; Against Apion. L C L , V o l . 186. C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1926. G r e e k text w i t h English o n facing p a g e s . T h e o d o r i d i s , C h r i s t o s . " D r e i n e u e F r a g m e n t e des G r a m m a t i k e r s A p i o n . " Rheinisches Museum 132 (1989): 3 4 5 - 5 0 . D e s c r i p t i o n of t h r e e n e w f r a g m e n t s of e t y m o l o g i c a l a n d g r a m m a t i c a l w o r k s l i n k e d with A p i o n . T h i e l e , E d w i n R . " A C o m p a r i s o n of t h e C h r o n o l o g i c a l D a t a of Israel a n d J u d a h . " VT 4 (1954): 1 8 5 - 9 5 . J o s e p h u s ' d a t a o n T y r i a n a n d H e b r e w kings is unreliable (CA 1.108, 126; Ant. 8.62). T o s a t o , A n g e l o . " L a t e o c r a z i a n e l l ' a n t i c o Israele: G e n e s i e significato di u n a f o r m a costituzionale." [English s u m m a r y ] Cristianesimo nella storia 8 (1987): 1-50. Investigation of J o s e p h u s ' t e r m " t h e o c r a c y " (CA 2.165) a n d its a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s as a description of a n c i e n t Israel. T r e v e s , M a r c o . " T h e R e i g n of G o d in t h e O T . " VT 19 (1969): 2 3 0 - 4 3 . P p . 2 3 0 - 3 1 o n t h e c o n c e p t " t h e o c r a c y " (CA 2.165); cf. p p . 1 4 1 - 4 3 . T r o i a n i , L u c i o : " S u i f r a m m e n t i di M a n e t o n e nel p r i m o libro del C o n t r a A p i o n e m di Flavio G i u s e p p e . " Studi Classici e Orientali 2 4 (1975): 9 7 - 1 2 6 . Discusses M a n e t h o ' s version of t w o invasions of E g y p t (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) . M a n e t h o ' s a n t i - S e m i t i s m is a u t h e n t i c . . Commento Storico al "Contro Apione" di Giuseppe: introduzione, commento storico, traduzione e indici. Biblioteca degli studi classici e orientali 9. Pisa: G i a r d i n i , 1977. Extensive i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d I t a l i a n t r a n s l a t i o n . I n c l u d e s discussion of d a t e s of t r a ditions m e n t i o n e d in CA, historical c o m m e n t a r y , s o m e t e x t u a l n o t e s . . " O s s e r v a z i o n i s o p r a l ' A p o l o g i a di F i l o n e : gli H y p o t h e t i c a . " Atheneum 5 6 (1978): 304-14. O n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of CA 2 . 2 0 3 - 1 3 t o Philo's Hypothetica. T r u b l e t , J a c q u e s . "Constitution et clôture d u c a n o n h é b r a ï q u e . " I n Le canon des Ecritures: Etudes historiques, exégétiques et systématiques. E d . C . T h e o b a l d , 7 7 - 1 8 7 . Paris: Cerf, 1990. P p . 1 2 0 - 2 2 o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 3 . Uffenheimer, B. " T h e ' A w a k e n e r s ' — A C u l t i c T e r m from t h e A n c i e n t N e a r E a s t [ H e b r e w ] . " Leshonenu 30 (1965): 1 6 3 - 7 4 . I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 1.119; Ant. 8 . 1 4 6 . v a n U n n i k , W i l l e m C . " D e la règle Mr|xe rcpoaGewou jxf|xe àcpeAxîv d a n s l'histoire d u c a n o n . " VC 3 (1949): 1-36. O n this f o r m u l a ( D e u t 4.2 a n d 12.32) in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.17; CA 1.42) a n d in early C h r i s t i a n l i t e r a t u r e . . "Flavius J o s e p h u s a n d t h e M y s t e r i e s . " I n Studies in Hellenistic Religions. E P R O 78. E d . M . J . V e r m a s e r e n , 2 4 4 - 7 9 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 7 9 . P p . 2 5 8 - 6 8 i n c l u d e discussion of CA 2 . 1 8 8 - 8 9 , 2 6 6 - 6 7 . J o s e p h u s ' r e f e r e n c e t o t h e mysteries shows h e r e g a r d e d t h e m as t h e highest f o r m of religion i n t h e eyes of his r e a d e r s . U r b a c h , E p h r a i m E. " C l a s s - S t a t u s a n d L e a d e r s h i p in t h e W o r l d of t h e P a l e s t i n i a n S a g e s . " Proceedings of the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968): 3 8 - 7 4 . G e n e a l o g i c a l p u r i t y of priests m e n t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s (CA 1.7; War 6.114) c o n firmed b y m. Sank. 4.2. V a n Seters, J o h n . The Hyksos: A New Investigation. N e w H a v e n : Y a l e , 1 9 6 6 . O n j o s e p h u s ' version of M a n e t h o (CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 , 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) , see p p . 1 2 1 - 2 6 , 137, 143, 13, 187, 192. . In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and* the Origins of Biblical History. N e w H a v e n : Y a l e , 1 9 8 3 . P p . 1 9 5 - 9 9 discuss t h e A n n a l s of T y r e . T h e w o r k is suspect a t m a n y p o i n t s a n d c a n b e u s e d only w i t h g r e a t c a u t i o n in historical r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . It is d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e A n n a l s c o n t a i n e d a n y r e f e r e n c e t o S o l o m o n ' s T e m p l e (cf. CA 1.121-26).

46

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

V a r s a t , I. " L e s Juifs d a n s l ' E g y p t e g r e c q u e et r o m a i n e : A s p e c t s sociaux, politiques et i n s t i t u t i o n n e l s . " Diss., U n i v e r s i t y of P a r i s , 1 9 7 5 . P p . 3 4 6 - 9 0 c o m p a r e CA w i t h Philo's In Flaccum. Vellas, Vasilios M . ÖtaxßCoi) 'ICOOTITCOV KCCT' 'Amœvoç, Aoyoç A W i Aoyoç B '. A t h e n s , 1 9 3 8 39. T r a n s l a t i o n of CA i n t o m o d e m G r e e k , w i t h i n t r o d u c t i o n . V e r m e s , G e z a . " A S u m m a r y of t h e L a w b y Flavius J o s e p h u s , " NovT 2 4 (1982): 289-303. A r g u e s t h a t J o s e p h u s ' i n a t t e n t i o n t o ritual m a t t e r s in CA 2 . 1 6 4 - 2 1 9 implies t h a t t h e ritual laws s t e m f r o m M o s e s r a t h e r t h a n from G o d . H i s m e n t i o n of T o r a h r e a d i n g o n t h e S a b b a t h (CA 2.175) serves his d i d a c t i c p u r p o s e . J o s e p h u s ' e m p h a ses a n d omissions a r e m o t i v a t e d largely b y a p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n s . V i l l a l b a i V a r n e d a , P e r e . The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. L e i d e n : Brill, 1986. P p . 2 1 2 - 1 4 : Analysis of t h e n a r r a t i v e a r t of J o s e p h u s in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n s to Books 1 a n d 2 of CA. V i s c h e r , L u k a s . " L e p r é t e n d u 'culte d e l ' â n e ' d a n s l'Église p r i m i t i v e . " RHR 139 (1951): 1 4 - 3 5 . O n CA 2 . 8 0 - 1 1 4 a n d its b a c k g r o u n d in t h e history of religions. V i v i a n o , B e n e d i c t T . Study as Worship: Aboth and the New Testament. S J L A 2 6 . L e i d e n : Brill, 1 9 7 8 . P p . 1 5 3 - 5 7 : J o s e p h u s o n t h e e d u c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n a n d o n t h e o b s e r v a n c e of laws (CA 1.60; 2 . 1 7 0 - 7 8 ; 204). V o g e l s t e i n , M a x . Biblical Chronology, Part 1: The Chronology of Hezekiah and His Successors. C i n c i n n a t i , 1944. C o m p a r i s o n of B e r o s s u s ' r e p o r t in CA 1 . 1 3 5 - 5 3 w i t h Ant. 1 0 . 2 2 0 - 4 8 . C o n c l u d e s t h a t J o s e p h u s is w e l l - i n f o r m e d . V o g t , E r n s t . Die neubabylonische Chronik über die Schlact bei Karkemisch und die Einnahme von Jerusalem. V T S u p 4 (1957): 6 7 - 9 6 . O n t h e i m p o r t a n c e of W i s e m a n ' s p u b l i c a t i o n (1956; see below). W a c h o l d e r , B e n - Z i o n . " H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a . " Encjud 8: 2 3 6 - 3 7 . CA 1 . 1 1 3 - 2 0 4 is s p u r i o u s . . Eupokmus: A Study of Judeo-Greek Literature. C i n c i n n a t i , 1974. P p . 7 6 - 8 5 discuss t h e use of t h e L a w in J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c w o r k s earlier t h a n J o s e p h u s (cf. CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 6 ) . W a d d e l l , W . G . Manetho. With an English Translation. L C L . C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1940. G r e e k text of f r a g m e n t s of M a n e t h o (inluding t h o s e p r e s e r v e d in CA 1 . 7 3 - 9 2 , 9 3 105, 2 2 7 - 8 7 ) w i t h English o n facing p a g e s . P p . v i i - x x x i n t r o d u c e t h e life a n d w o r k s of M a n e t h o . W a l l a c h , L u i t p o l d . " A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t a n d t h e I n d i a n g y m n o s o p h i s t s in H e b r e w T r a d i t i o n . " P A A J R 11 (1941): 4 7 - 8 3 . P p . 7 0 - 7 1 o n CA 2 . 2 0 8 , 2 1 6 ; J o s e p h u s gives t h e l a w a h e l l e n i z e d f o r m for t h e sake of his r e a d e r s . W a l t e r , N i k o l a u s . " Z u r Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g einiger R e s t e früher jüdisch-hellenistischer Liter a t u r b e i J o s e p h u s , C l e m e n s u n d E u s e b . " SP 7 (1966): 3 1 4 - 2 0 . O n t h e s o u r c e p r o b l e m s of Ant. 1 . 1 5 8 - 6 0 ; CA 1 . 1 6 1 - 2 1 8 . J o s e p h u s d i d n o t k n o w t h e rcepi 'Iouôaicov of A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor. . Untersuchungen zu den Fragmenten der jüdisch-hellenistischen Historiker. H a l l e / S a a l e , 1967. P p . 15ff., 37ff., 108ff.: o n t h e m e n t i o n b y J o s e p h u s (CA 1.218) of D e m e t r i u s , Eupolemus, a n d Philo the Historian. . Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Historiker. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, 1.2 ( p p . 9 1 - 1 6 3 ) . E d . W e r n e r G e o r g K ü m m e l et al. G ü t e r s l o h : M o h n , 1980. Pp. 1 4 4 - 5 7 : I n t r o d u c t i o n a n d G e r m a n translation of P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s I (CA 1.1832 0 5 , 2 1 3 - 2 1 4 ; 2.43).

THE CHARACTER AND CONTEXT OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM

47

Weill, R a y m o n d . La fin du Moyen Empire Égyptien. Paris: P i c a r d , 1 9 1 8 . Extensive discussion of M a n e t h o : p p . 6 8 - 9 5 o n CA 1 . 7 3 - 1 0 5 ; p p . 9 5 - 1 4 5 o n CA 1.227-87. P p . 1 0 4 - 1 1 1 discuss t h e a n t i - S e m i t i c version of t h e E x o d u s in o t h e r authors, including C h a e r e m o n , Hecataeus, Lysimachus a n d Posidonius. Pp. 131-2, 1 7 2 - 3 , 173 n. 1, 2 0 8 suggest t h a t A v a r i s m a y b e identical w i t h H e l i o p o l i s . . " T h e P r o b l e m of t h e Site A v a r i s . " JEA 21 (1935): 1 0 - 2 5 . I n c l u d e s discussion of e v i d e n c e from CA 1.78, 8 6 , 2 3 7 - 3 8 , 2 4 2 - 4 3 , 2 6 0 - 6 2 , 2 9 6 . E v i d e n c e d o e s n o t allow us t o p i n p o i n t t h e site of A v a r i s a n y m o r e closely t h a n t h e e x t r e m e e a s t e r n tip of t h e T a n i t e n o m e . Weiss, H a n s - F r i e d r i c h . Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und palästinischen Judentums. Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1966. P p . 2 2 7 , 3 1 8 o n CA 2 . 1 9 2 . W e l l m a n n , M . " A e g y p t i s c h e s . " Hermes 31 (1896): 2 2 1 - 5 3 . P p . 2 4 9 - 5 3 o n A p i o n ' s influence o n G r e e k a n d L a t i n l i t e r a t u r e . W e n d l a n d , P . " D i e T h e r a p e u t e n u n d die p h i l o n i s c h e Schrift v o m b e s c h a u l i c h e n L e b e n . " Jahrbuch fiir classische Philologie S u p p l . 2 2 (1896): 7 1 4 . Philo's Hypothetica is a s o u r c e for CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 . W e s t c o t t , B r o o k e F . The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches. L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1864. P p . 2 5 - 3 0 o n CA 1 . 3 7 - 4 0 . W i l c k e n , U l r i c h . Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien: Ein Beitrag zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte. 2 vols. L e i p z i g a n d Berlin: G i e s e c k e a n d D e v r i e n t , 1899. ( R e p r i n t , A m s t e r d a m : H a k k e r t , 1970; N e w Y o r k : A r n o , 1979). V o l . 1, p p . 2 8 3 - 8 4 o n CA 2A4, 6 4 . W i l d e , R o b e r t . The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries. W a s h i n g t o n : C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y of A m e r i c a Press, 1949. I n c l u d e s discussion of G r e e k writers in t h e p r e - C h r i s t i a n e r a q u o t e d b y J o s e p h u s : CA 1 . 1 7 6 - 8 3 (Clearchus); CA 1 . 7 3 - 9 0 , 2 2 9 - 5 1 ( M a n e t h o ) ; CA 1 . 1 6 4 - 6 5 ( H e r mippus); CA 1 . 2 0 5 - 1 2 (Agatharchides); CA 1 . 1 1 6 - 2 6 ( M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s ) ; CA 1 . 1 1 2 - 1 5 (Dius); CA 2 . 1 1 2 - 2 0 (Mnaseas); CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 4 9 (Apollonius M o l o n ) ; CA 1.288-92 ( C h a e r e m o n ) ; CA 1 . 3 0 4 - 2 0 (Lysimachus) a n d CA 2 . 2 - 1 4 4 , 2 9 5 (Apion). Williams, D a v i d S. Stylometric Authorship Studies in Flavius Josephus and Related Literature. Lewiston, N . Y . : M e l l e n , 1992. Uses CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 1 9 as o n e of several e x a m p l e s of J o s e p h u s ' style to test t h e g e n u i n e ness of 4 M a c e a n d De Universo. Willrich, H u g o . Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung. G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k a n d R u p r e c h t , 1895. I n c l u d e s discussion of G r e e k writers in t h e p r e - C h r i s t i a n e r a q u o t e d b y J o s e p h u s : Pp. 20-33; 4 8 - 5 1 , Hecataeus; pp. 4 5 - 4 7 , Clearchus; pp. 5 3 - 5 6 , Manetho; pp. 5 6 - 5 9 , Berossus; p p . 5 9 - 6 0 , H e r m i p p u s ; p . 6 0 , A g a t h a r c h i d e s . P p . 1 7 2 - 7 6 a r g u e t h a t , c o n t r a r y to J o s e p h u s ' allegation (CA 2 . 2 8 - 3 2 ) , A p i o n w a s n o t a n E g y p t i a n , but a Greek and an Alexandrian. . " D e r historische k e r n d e s I I I . M a k k a b ä e r b u c h e s . " Hermes 3 9 (1904): 2 4 4 - 5 8 . O n CA 2 . 5 1 - 5 6 . C a s t s d o u b t u p o n t h e reliability of J o s e p h u s ' r e p o r t of t h e p e r secution of t h e J e w s b y P t o l e m y P h y s c o n . . " Z u m Brief d e s K a i s e r s C l a u d i u s a n die A l e x a n d r i n e r . " Hermes 6 0 (1925): 482-89. O n CA 2 . 5 1 - 5 6 . Wilson, J o h n A. The Burden of Egypt: An Interpretation of Ancient Egyptian Culture. C h i c a g o : University of C h i c a g o , 1 9 5 1 . P p . 1 5 4 - 6 5 a r g u e t h a t J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t of t h e H y k s o s is t e n d e n t i o u s (CA 1 . 7 5 83). W i l s o n , R o b e r t M c L . "Jewish L i t e r a r y P r o p a g a n d a . " I n Paganisme, Judaïsme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le monde antique, 6 1 - 7 1 . P a r i s E . d e B o c c a r d , 1 9 7 8 . S u m m a r y of a n t i - S e m i t i c a t t a c k s m e n t i o n e d in CA a n d t h e a n s w e r s of J o s e p h u s .

48

JOHN R. LEVISON AND J. ROSS WAGNER

Intellectuals s u c h as A p i o n w e r e influential, a t least in A l e x a n d r i a , in stirring u p p o p u l a r o u t b r e a k s of a n t i - S e m i t i s m . W i s e m a n , D o n a l d J . Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. L o n d o n : British M u s e u m , 1956. C o n f i r m s Berossus' a c c o u n t (CA 1.135; Ant. 1 0 . 2 1 9 - 2 6 ) of t h e B a t d e of C a r c h e m i s h . Wolff, M . " V e s t i g i n g e n u i t b r e i d i n g d e r J o d e n in R o m e , tijdens d e R e p u b l i e k . " Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, Land- en Volkenkunde 2 4 (1910): 1-10. I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 2.33ff. Y a v e t z , Zvi. " J o s e p h u s . " Ancient Writers: Greece and Rome. Vol. 2: Lucretius to Ammanianus Marcellinus. E d . T . J a m e s L u c e , 8 7 7 - 8 5 . N e w Y o r k : S c r i b n e r ' s , 1982. P o p u l a r s u r v e y of J o s e p h u s ' life a n d w o r k s . CA is p e r h a p s J o s e p h u s ' m o s t brilliant work. Y o y o t t e , J e a n . " L ' E g y p t e a n c i e n n e et les origines d e l'antijudai'sme." RHR 163 (1963): 133-43. O n t h e anti-Jewish sources in CA. Z e i d i n , S o l o m o n . " A n H i s t o r i c a l S t u d y of t h e C a n o n i z a t i o n of t h e H e b r e w Scrip­ t u r e s . " PAAJR 3 ( 1 9 3 1 - 3 2 ) : 1 2 1 - 5 8 . P p . 1 2 9 - 3 0 o n CA 1 . 3 8 - 4 3 . . " K o r b a n . " JQR 5 3 ( 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 ) : 1 6 0 - 6 3 . I n c l u d e s discussion of CA 1.167. . "Proselytes a n d Proselytism d u r i n g t h e S e c o n d C o m m o n w e a l t h a n d t h e E a r l y T a n n a i t i c P e r i o d . " I n Harry Austryn Wojfson Jubilee Volume, 3 vols. J e r u s a l e m : A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y for J e w i s h R e s e a r c h , 1 9 6 5 , II: 8 7 1 - 8 1 . I n c l u d e s discussion of 6eoaeßt|<; (CA 2.282). . The Rise and Fall of the Judean State: A Political, Social, and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth. 3 V o l s . P h i l a d e l p h i a : J e w i s h P u b l i c a t i o n Society, 1978. V o l . 3 , p p . 4 1 3 - 1 7 o n CA. Zeller, E . " D i e H i e r o g l y p h i k e r C h ä r e m o n u n d H o r a p o l l o . " Hermes 11 (1876): 4 3 0 - 3 3 . P p . 4 3 0 - 3 2 o n t h e life a n d w o r k of C h a e r e m o n (CA 1.288-303) Z i p s e r , M a i e r . Des Flavius Josephus Werk "Ueber das hohe Alter des jüdischen Volkes gegen Apion" nach hebräischen Original-quellen erläutert von Dr. M. %ipser, Oberrabiner zu Rechnitz. Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben und bevorwortet von Dr. Adolf Jellinek. W i e n : Holder, 1871. T e x t of CA w i t h c o m m e n t a r y . Z u n t z , G ü n t h e r . "Aristeas S t u d i e s II: Aristeas o n t h e T r a n s l a t i o n of t h e T o r a h . " JSS 4 (1959): 1 0 9 - 2 6 . T h e L e t t e r of Aristeas w a s m o d e l e d o n t h e w o r k of H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (as k n o w n f r o m CA 1.183-204).

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG U N D TEXTKRITIK V O N CONTRA APIONEM* H E I N Z SCHRECKENBERG

Universität Münster

I. Literaturgeschichtliche Vorbemerkungen Das letzte seiner vier Werke veröffentlichte Josephus 94 n. Chr. erschienenen Antiquitates Iudaicae - auf diese 1-2.54.127; 2, 136.287 zurück - also etwa 9 4 / 9 5 oder ein Erscheinungsjahr zu Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts auszuschließen .

nach den 9 3 / blickt er CA 1, 9 4 / 1 0 0 . Selbst ist nicht ganz

1

Problematisch ist die Frage des Werktitels Contra Apionem. Wir skizzieren hier zunächst nur kurz den Sachverhalt, mit d e m wir uns im Laufe dieses Aufsatzes noch zu befassen haben: Als Titel gibt Origenes jcepl xfiq TCÖV 'Io\)8a{cov dpxaiotrixo^, was aber nur das erste der beiden Bücher zutreffend charakterisiert. Porphyrios spricht von diesem Werk als npbq tovq "EÄArivocq, was ebenfalls nur zum ersten Buch paßt. Eusebios weiß von rcepi xr\q (xcov) 'Io\)8aicov dp^aiornioq und &vxippr|G£i<; npbc, 'Arcicova xöv ypa^fiaTiKov. Hieronymus bietet contra Apionem, was an Eusebios' Formulierung anklingt, als Titel aber nur CA 2, 1-144 korrekt bezeichnet. Dieser verwirrenden Situation entspricht, daß Cassiodor (+ u m 578) mitteilt, er habe die libri antiquitatum des Josephus, 22 Bücher umfassend, ins Lateinische übersetzen lassen, also überhaupt keinen Werktitel erwähnt und die beiden Bücher eine Art Anhang der Antiquitates Iudaicae sein läßt. Seit den Editionen von B. Niese (1885-1895) und C. Boysen (1898) hat sich die aus der lateinischen Josephustradition erwachsene Titelvariante eingebürgert De Iudaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem, vor allem in der Kurzform Contra Apionem. O b wirklich der jüdische Historiker "makes no mention whatsoever of a name for this work" , wird hier noch zu prüfen sein. Wir belassen es für den Zweck unserer Abhandlung zunächst bei dem eingeführten Titel Contra Apionem. 2

* F ü r G ü n t e r M a y e r z u m sechzigsten G e b u r t s t a g . S o zutreffend C o h e n 1 9 8 8 , 1. Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 1 1 3 , d a m i t d i e c o m m u n i s o p i n i o r e f e r i e r e n d . 1

2

50

HEINZ

SCHRECKENBERG

Das Werk verteidigt das Judentum gegen Apion und andere Kri­ tiker als alte, angesehene Religion mit philosophisch fundiertem Gottesbegriff und ehrwürdigem Kultus, als Religion, die mit guten Gründen einen angemessenen Platz in der hellenistischen Welt bean­ spruchen kann, als Religion, die in gewisser Weise auch ideales Grundgesetz eines Staates und überhaupt vorbildlich ist. Josephus' GeoKpaxia (CA 2, 165) ist jedenfalls eine Art aktualisierte Form von Moses' Politeia. D e m entspricht auch der bekannte Einfluß von Piatons NOJLIOI auf Contra Apionem . Josephus hat zweifellos von Piaton, Thukydides und anderen Griechen gelernt, ohne seine jüdische Ortho­ doxie inhaltlich zu assimilieren, ja CA 2, 1 4 5 - 2 1 4 ist wohl "the earliest known piece of Jewish systematic theology", wie mit einigem Recht festgestellt wurde . Daneben ist Contra Apionem gewiß auch ein "essay on historiography" , in dem sich der Autor als Historiograph legiti­ mieren, profilieren und mit seinen nichtjüdischen Vorgängern und Kollegen auseinandersetzen will . Nicht zuletzt aber konnten, ähn­ lich wie die Antiquitates Iudaicae, die beiden Büchern der Schrift gegen Apion „gewiß auch eine Funktion für die Mitjuden haben; sie dien­ ten ihnen zur Selbstvergewisserung der eigenen jüdischen Identität und der eigenen Geschichte in der heidnischen Umwelt" ; denn wie Josephus sein Bellum Iudaicum „vielen" NichtJuden und Glaubensge­ nossen verkaufte (CA 1, 51), so vermutlich auch die Antiquitates ludaicae und Contra Apionem. D a ß er seine Werke in griechischer Sprache veröffentlichte, bedeutet im übrigen nicht, daß er „im wesentlichen für den hellenistischen Osten schreibt" ; denn auch viele Angehörige der gebildeten Mittel - und Oberschicht des lateinischen Westens konnten griechisch geschriebene Literatur lesen. 3

4

5

6

7

8

W e n n die christliche Apologetik „Erbin der jüdischen Apologetik" wird und der Streit zwischen Christen und Juden in mancher Hin­ sicht auch durch die literarische Kontroverse zwischen Josephus und den Griechen vorbereitet wird , kann nicht verwundern, daß der jüdische Autor, ähnlich wie Philo, bei seinen Glaubensgenossen spä­ terhin kaum noch Beachtung fand und ignoriert wurde . Dazu trug 9

10

3

Nachgewiesen v o n Schäublin 1982. Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 117. C o h e n 1988, 3. Siehe n e b e n C o h e n b e s o n d e r s a u c h die ü b e r z e u g e n d e n D a r l e g u n g e n bei Pilhofer 1990, 193ff., f e r n e r H o r a n 1 9 9 1 . G e r b e r 1994, 112. Schäublin 1982, 316. Pilhofer 1 9 9 0 , 2 - 4 ; vgl. S c h ä u b l i n 1 9 8 2 , 3 4 1 . D a s gilt sicher n o c h n i c h t für die z a h l r e i c h e j ü d i s c h e B e v ö l k e r u n g R o m s , z u 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

51

möglicherweise bei, daß den Christen viele seiner Berichte - besonders zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, zum Untergang Jerusalem im Jahre 70 und zum Christentum - hochwillkommen waren und er, wie Philo, zu einer Art Kirchenvater honoris causa wurde . Im Laufe dieser christlichen Aneignung, ja Anverwandlung, kam es zu falschen­ den Erweiterungen seiner Texte (Ant. 18, 6 3 - 6 4 : interpoliertes Christus­ zeugnis). In Wahrheit sind die genuinen direkt das Christentum betreffenden Josephusberichte extrem kurz und beiläufig . Z u m Zeit­ punkt der Veröffentlichung von Contra Apionem, gegen Ende des 1. Jahrhunderts, hatte das Christentum - es galt, religionsgeschichtlich nicht ohne Grund, lange als jüdische Sekte - schon einige Bedeu­ tung erlangt, die dem jüdischen Historiker nicht entgangen sein konnte. So hätte er wenigstens hier, wenn schon kaum je in seinen früheren Werken, darauf eingehen können, wie ähnlich zuvor auf andere inner­ jüdische Gruppierungen. D o c h war wohl Josephus nicht daran inter­ essiert, das in der Schrift gegen Apion entworfene glanzvolle Bild des Judentums durch eine Erwähnung oder gar Berücksichtigung des erst unter Konstantin dem Großen ebenbürtig werdenden - Chri­ stentums zu kompromittieren. So erklärt sich möglicherweise, daß er in seinem Spätwerk kein Wort zu dem konkurrierenden Christentum findet . Ähnlich realitätsfern könnte erscheinen, daß der jüdische Historiker in CA 2, 1 9 3 - 1 9 8 über den Tempel zu Jerusalem und den dortigen Opferkult schreibt, als habe es das Jahr 70 gar nicht gege­ ben! Aber viele Priester, zu denen er selbst gehörte, hatten die Kata­ strophe überlebt, und anscheinend hofften nicht wenige, darunter Josephus selbst, auf eine Restauration des Tempelkults und der prie­ sterlichen Aristokratie in Jerusalem . Jedenfalls wirft die chronologisch 11

12

13

14

15

d e r e n H o n o r a t i o r e n e r w o h l g e h ö r t e (s. G o o d m a n 1994); d a ß seine Schriften n i c h t d e n W e g n a c h J a h n e , in d a s n e u e geistige Z e n t r u m d e s J u d e n t u m s , f a n d e n , w a r vielleicht a u c h d u r c h Zufall b e d i n g t , wie für die Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g s - u n d W i r k u n g s ­ geschichte d e r a n t i k e n L i t e r a t u r ü b e r h a u p t viel v o m Zufall a b h i n g , wie w i r n o c h s e h e n w e r d e n . Allerdings ist es w o h l n i c h t zufällig, d a ß k e i n b e d e u t e n d e r n i c h t j ü d i s c h e r A u t o r d e r g r i e c h i s c h - r ö m i s c h e n A n t i k e für die seit d e m 2. J h . n . C h r . entstehende rabbinische Literatur Bedeutung hatte. R u n i a 1993 u n d 1994; vgl. T e r i a n 1994. Siehe S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 9 2 , 3 7 - 3 8 . Vgl. z.B. S t e r n II (1980) 108 z u S u e t o n , d e r bis in die erste Hälfte d e s 2. J a h r h u n d e r t s lebte: " S u e t o n i u s d o e s n o t yet distinguish b e t w e e n J e w s a n d C h r i s t i a n s " . Zutreffend s c h r e i b t K r i e g e r 1994, 3 3 5 : „ S a c h v e r h a l t e , die e i n e a p o l o g e t i s c h e Intention stören w ü r d e n , verschweigt J o s e p h u s mitunter". S c h w a r t z 1990, 87f. 95f. 2 lOf. S c h w a r t z o p e r i e r t z . T . m i t V e r m u t u n g e n , e n t ­ wirft a b e r eine eindrucksvolle, ü b e r w i e g e n d ü b e r z e u g e n d e D a r s t e l l u n g d e r S i t u a t i o n n a c h d e m J a h r e 70. - I n gewisser W e i s e ä h n l i c h richteten n o c h die J u d e n c h r i s t e n 11

12

13

14

15

52

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

letzte Schrift des jüdischen Autors, in der er seine wesentlichen Stand­ punkte verdeutlichend zusammenfaßt, einiges Licht auf seine Werke insgesamt. Vielleicht trifft sogar die Feststellung zu: "Contra Apionem can be regarded as the key to all of Josephus'writings" . 16

II. Text, Sprache und Stil Nach diesen literaturgeschichtlichen Vorbemerkungen zum Autor und seinem Text Contra Apionem wenden wir uns denjenigen mit Sprache und Stil des Josephus gegebenen Problemen zu, die unmittelbar text­ kritische Bedeutung haben. Wir haben davon auszugehen, daß der jüdische Historiker, wie die meisten seiner Glaubensgenossen in Palästina und in der Diaspora, schon als K n a b e gute Grundkenntnisse der griechischen Sprache erwarb, daß er zwar für die griechische Niederschrift des Bellum Iudaicum noch „Helfer" benötigte (CA 1, 50) und seine griechische „Aussprache" (Ant. 20, 263) zeit seines Lebens ihn als geborenen Nichtgriechen verriet, daß er aber seine Sprachkenntnisse allmählich so vervollkommnete, daß er die auf das Bellum Iudaicum folgenden Werke ohne nennenswerte Hilfe griechisch niederschreiben konnte. Wie zum Beispiel die Katakombeninschriften zeigen, sprachen die Juden R o m s Griechisch als übliche Umgangssprache, und noch die rabbinische Literatur der Spätantike gibt Zeugnis von der weiten Verbreitung des Griechischen unter den Juden. Gewiß war im länd­ lichen R a u m des Vorderen Orients das Aramäische die Verkehrs­ sprache, aber in den Städten dominierte doch meist das Griechische . Dagegen war die Kenntnis des Lateinischen, das die Römer im Orient intern für Verwaltungszwecke benutzten, dort selten, und auch mit Josephus' Lateinkenntnissen dürfte es nicht weit her gewesen sein. Immerhin zitiert er Ant. 14, 68 Livius (vgl. auch Ant. 19, 270) . 17

18

des 2. J h . u n g e b r o c h e n e H o f f n u n g e n a u f J e r u s a l e m (dazu S. H e i d , in: K a i r o s 3 4 3 5 , 1 9 9 2 - 9 3 , 1-26). Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 1 2 1 . D i e s e r S a c h v e r h a l t ist in gewisser W e i s e z u v e r g l e i c h e n m i t d e r h e u t i g e n Be­ d e u t u n g d e s E n g l i s c h e n u n d F r a n z ö s i s c h e n in d e n e h e m a l i g e n K o l o n i e n E n g l a n d s u n d F r a n k r e i c h s ; vgl. i m ü b r i g e n D e b r u n n e r 1954, 7 8 : „ D a s G r i e c h i s c h e k a n n J e s u s u n d s e i n e n galiläischen J ü n g e r n n i c h t f r e m d g e w e s e n sein". Z u r S a c h e a u c h R o s s 1990, 4 1 - 4 7 u n d Safrai 1 9 9 1 , 3 - 8 . Z u t r e f f e n d N i e s e 1914, 5 7 1 : " I t is c e r t a i n t h a t h e also h a d s o m e k n o w l e d g e of L a t i n " ; vgl. a u c h F e l d m a n 1994, 4 5 . 1 6

17

18

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

53

Bezüglich seiner „Helfer" bei der griechischen Niederschrift des Bellum Iudaicum sollte auch gesehen werden, daß man in gebildeten römischen Kreisen - zu denen Josephus zweifellos gehörte - und in den städtischen Zentren des lateinisch sprechenden Teils des Imperium Romanum schon seit Ciceros Zeiten „zweisprachig" war . Das Griechische war sozusagen die lingua fianca des Römischen Reiches. D a ß der jüdische Autor zu Beginn seiner schriftstellerischen Tätigkeit stilistische „Helfer" (deren Arbeitsresultat er approbierte!) hatte, kann aus heutiger Sicht keine textkritische Bedeutung haben, schon gar nicht für das Spätwerk Contra Apionem. Josephus will als Schriftsteller „Schönheit der Darstellung" bieten, und seinen Lesern soll die Kenntnis der jüdischen Geschichte in gefalliger, stilistisch anmutiger Form vermittelt werden (Ant. 14, 2~3): T6 xf|<; änayyeXiaq KaXkoq ... iiexot xdpvcoq xivoq Kai fi8ovf|<; TTIV eujceipmv Xajißdveiv. In diesem Sinne schreibt er seine „attizistische Koine" beziehungsweise „Literarkoine" . N a c h dem gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand sind zwar keine starren stilistischen Regeln zu erkennen, an die er sich durchgehend u n d konsequent gehalten hätte, doch sind gewisse Trends zu sehen, z u m Beispiel ein Bemühen u m Hiatvermeidung. Es wäre aber nicht sinnvoll, mit d e m Texteditor Naber den Hiat durchgehend auch gegen die einhellige Überlieferung zu beseitigen, nicht nur in Fällen, in denen wenigstens ein Teil der Handschriften einen hiatfreien Text bietet. S o führt Naber Elision und Krasis im Vergleich zu Niese viel rigoroser durch, und er vereinheitlicht auch die Verwendung der Konsonanten a m Wortende, zum Beispiel oakcö(<;), eiai(v). Zweifellos richtig bevorzugt er bei Ver19

20

ben jüngere Formen wie yivzcQai

u n d yivcooKeiv (vor yiyvEöQai

und

YVYVG>O"K£IV), ohne daß man deshalb, w o ältere Formen dieser Art gut bezeugt sind, sie eliminieren müßte. Ähnlich vereinheitlicht Naber, weithin auch gegen die Überlieferung, xeaaapeq zu xeTTapeq, xdaaeiv zu xdrceiv usw. Auffallig ist bei Josephus die regelmäßige Aspiration elidierter Präpositionen (z.B. ixp'), was i m Falle von alternativen Lesarten wie amov - amov, amtib - ahi& für letztere spricht. Anderes gehört in den Bereich der textkritischen Adiaphora: Akzente und Spiritus erscheinen bereits in vorbyzantinischer Zeit gelegentlich als Lesehilfen in den Handschriften. Vor dem 12. Jahrhundert wurde

19

Blanck 1992, 3 7 ; vgl. e b e n d o r t : „ A u c h w a r es Sitte b e i d e r O b e r s c h i c h t , sich literarisch gebildete S k l a v e n als S e k r e t ä r e , V o r l e s e r o d e r B i b l i o t h e k a r e z u h a l t e n " . D e b r u n n e r 1954, 2 1 . 9 4 ; vgl. a u c h d i e g r u n d l e g e n d e A r b e i t v o n Pelletier 1962. 2 0

54

HEINZ

SCHRECKENBERG

das Jota subscriptum gewöhnlich adskribiert oder einfach weggelassen. Das Wortende wird weder in der Antike noch bei den Byzantinern durch Zwischenräume gekennzeichnet, doch findet sich die uns geläu­ fige Interpunktion, allerdings regellos, bereits in der Antike . Bezüglich der Eigennamen (Personen- und Ortsnamen) ist davon auszugehen, daß Josephus sich weitgehend an die Septuaginta hält, allerdings an eine von der uns bekannten etwas verschiedene Fas­ sung. Generell bietet er aber im Sinne einer flüssig lesbaren Literarkoine sprachlich glatte Formen (z.B. 'Iepoo-oAujioc statt 'IepouaaÄrin), das heißt, er hellenisiert durch Flexion die - in der Septuaginta in­ deklinablen - hebräischen Namen. Auch verhält er sich konventionell hellenisierend bei der Verwendung des (im Hebräischen bei Eigen­ namen nicht üblichen) Artikels. Der fünfte Buchstabe des hebräischen Alphabets (He) erfordert im übrigen durchaus nicht regelmäßig den Spiritus asper, der Spiritus lenis ist ebenso korrekt . Im Falle der textlichen Alternative AoruiSriq - Aocßi8r|<; ist wohl Aoun8r|<; korrekt, weil in solchen Fällen das Beta byzantinisch ist. Ein Teil der hier angesprochenen T h e m e n betrifft gewiß textkriti­ sche Adiaphora, doch kann die attizistische Nivellierung von Josephus' Text durch Naber nicht gebilligt werden; denn sein Stil ist - trotz stark überwiegender Gemeinsamkeiten in allen vier Werken - nicht völlig homogen. D e n Regeln attischer Prosa folgt er besonders in seinem - überwiegend luziden - Satzbau. Daneben erscheinen viele Koine - Elemente, dazu Archaismen und Neologismen (davon der bekannteste in CA 2, 165: OeoKpaxia), ja seine attizistisch gefärbte Literarkoine macht weithin den Eindruck einer angelernten, etwas künstlichen Bildungssprache . Generell sollte gelten: Lesarten, die nicht wenigstens einmal von allen Textzeugen bezeugt werden, sind wenig vertrauenswürdig, und textliche Vereinheitlichungen gegen den über­ einstimmenden Befund der Überlieferung sind nicht ratsam. Beson­ ders in sprachlich-stilistischen Dingen kann bei gespaltener Überlie­ ferung eine Entscheidung nahegelegt sein im Sinne des vom Autor selbst formulierten Stilprinzips (s. oben zu Ant. 14, 2-3). Dahin ge­ hört auch eine maßvolle Hiatvermeidung. 21

22

23

2 1

Z u r S a c h e P . M a a s bei H a r l f i n g e r 1 9 8 0 , 5 3 - 5 5 . D i e s g e g e n S c h l a t t e r 1 9 1 3 ; z u d e n E i g e n n a m e n ü b e r h a u p t siehe S c h a l k 1968 u n d M ö l l e r - S c h m i t t 1976 u n d 1980; als M a t e r i a l s a m m l u n g nützlich ist n o c h Boettger 1879. V i e l e g u t e B e o b a c h t u n g e n z u m Stil d e s J o s e p h u s bietet zuletzt b e s o n d e r s G r o s s (1988); einschlägige ältere A r b e i t e n b e i S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1968 (p. X V I I , N r . 12: „ S p r a 2 2

2 3

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

55

III. Fontes des Textes und Reminiszenzen Die bisher angesprochenen T h e m e n betrafen den Autor und alle seine Werke einschließlich Contra Apionem. Die zahlreichen Quellen, auf welche diese Schrift rekurriert, konnte Josephus, soweit er sie als wohlhabender M a n n in Gestalt von Buchrollen nicht selbst besaß, in den öffentlichen Bibliotheken R o m s einsehen, vor allem in der von Augustus 28 v. Chr. in einem Anbau des Apollotempels auf dem Möns Palatinus gegründeten Bibliotheca Palatina . Freilich kannte er einen Teil der von ihm namentlich genannten Autoren nur über Mittelquellen. Die Ermittlung und detaillierte Abgrenzung der zahl­ reichen Fontes von Contra Apionem ist von beträchtlichem Nutzen für die Kritik und Interpretation des Textes, so daß wir sie nach dem gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand - er geht dank den textkritischen Adnotationes bei Jacoby, Stern und anderen deutlich über den Nieses hinaus - auflisten. Wir verbinden damit auch den Hinweis auf etli­ che Reminiszenzen (Erwähnungen und Anspielungen), soweit es sich dabei u m Informationen handelt, die ebenso wie die Fontes im Apparatus criticus einer möglichen neuen Edition der Schrift gegen Apion Aufnahme finden könnten: 24

Agatkarchides von Knidos (2. Jh. v. Chr.), Historiker und Geograph: CA 1, 2 0 5 - 2 1 1 . - FGrHist II A (1961) S. 220f.; Stern I (1976) S. 106; vgl. Gauger 1982, 31. Akusilaos von Argos (5. Jh. v. Chr.), nach Hekataios frühester Vertreter der mythographischen Prosaliteratur: CA 1, 13.16. - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 48. Anaxagoras ( 5 0 0 / 4 9 6 - 4 2 8 v. Chr.), Philosoph: CA 2, 265. - Diels-Kranz II (1960) S. 11; vgl. Pilhofer 1990, 204. Antiochos von Syrakus (4. J h . v. Chr.), schrieb über die Geschichte Siziliens: CA 1, 17. - FGrHist III B (1964) S. 543. Apion (starb Mitte 1. Jh. n. Chr. in Rom), Grammatiker in Alexandreia, Sohn des Poseidonios aus Oasis in Ägypten: CA 2, 1-7. 8 - 1 1 . 14. 15-17. 2 0 - 2 1 . 2 8 - 4 2 . 4 8 - 5 6 . 5 6 - 6 3 . 6 5 - 7 8 . 7 9 - 8 0 . 8 9 - 9 6 . 1 1 2 - 1 1 4 . 121-124. 125. 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 . 143. 1 3 7 - 1 4 4 . 2 9 5 - 2 9 6 . - FGrHist III C

c h e , Stil, W o r t g e b r a u c h , Begriffsgeschichte"); vgl. F e l d m a n 1984, p . X I I I : " V o c a b u l a r y a n d Style". Z u d e n v e r s c h i e d e n e n öffendichen B i b l i o t h e k e n R o m s s. B l a n c k 1 9 9 2 , 1 6 0 167.194.215.217f. 2 4

56

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

(1958) S. 1 2 3 - 1 3 3 . 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 ; Stern I (1976) S. 3 9 2 - 3 9 3 . 3 9 5 - 3 9 8 . 4 0 3 - 4 0 4 . 4 0 7 - 4 1 6 ; vgl. Theodoridis 1989; Pilhofer 1990, 217. Apollodoros von Athen (2. Jh. v. Chr.), Grammatiker, Verfasser philoso­ phischer, historischer und mythographischer Werke: CA 2, 8 3 - 8 4 . Stern I (1976) S. 118. Apollonios Mohn (1. J h . v. Chr.), berühmter Rhetor und Grammati­ ker, in Rhodos Lehrer Ciceros: CA 2, 16. 7 9 - 8 0 . 89. 9 1 - 9 6 . 145. 148. 236. 255. 258. 295. - FGrHist III C II (1969) S. 6 8 8 - 6 8 9 ; Stern I (1976) S. 1 5 1 - 1 5 6 ; vgl. Pilhofer 1990, 204. 217. Aristophanes (um 2 5 7 - 1 8 0 v. Chr.), Grammatiker: CA 1, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . FGrHist I A (1957) S. 211; Stern I (1976) S. 92. Berossos von Babylon (Anfang 3. Jh. v. Chr.), Beipriester, schrieb ein Geschichtswerk in 3 Büchern über Babylonien, für das er ähnliche Bedeutung hat wie Manetho für die Geschichte Ägyptens: CA 1, 1 2 8 153. - Schnabel 1923, 251. 2 7 1 - 2 7 4 ; FGrHist III C 1 (1958) S. 365. 3 8 8 - 3 9 4 ; Stern I (1976) S. 5 6 - 5 7 ; vgl. Nodet 1987, 331. Chairemon von Alexandreia (1. Jh. n. Chr.), stoischer Philosoph und ägyp­ tischer Priester: CA 1, 2 8 8 - 2 9 3 ; 2, 1. - FGrHist III C 1 (1958) S. 145-146; Stern I (1976) S. 419; P. W. van der Horst, in: Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 35, 1981, 2 6 5 - 2 7 2 ; Horst 1987. Choirihs von Samos (2. Hälfte 5. Jh. v. Chr.), Epiker: CA 1, 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 . Stern III (1984) S. 7; vgl. Dornseiff 1939; P. Radici Colace, in: Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 104, 1976, 1 5 - 2 0 . Demetrios von Phaleron (4.-3. Jh. v. Chr.), Staatsmann und Philosoph: CA 1, 218. - FGrHist II B (1962) S. 9 7 3 ; vgl. Wehrli I V (1949) S. 19. 43; Walter 1966. Dios (2. J h . v. Chr.), Verfasser einer Geschichte Phöniziens: CA 1, 1 1 2 - 1 1 5 . - FGrHist III C 2 (1969) S. 7 9 7 - 7 9 8 ; Stern I (1976) S. 124. Ephoros von Kyme (4. Jh. v. Chr.), griechischer Historiker, Verfasser einer Universalgeschichte in 30 Büchern: CA 1, 16. 67. - FGrHist II A (1961) S. 39. 42. 8 1 . Euhemeros von Messene (stand 3 1 1 - 2 9 8 v. Chr. im Dienst des Königs Kassandros von Makedonien), Verfasser der Hiera anagraphe, einer Mischung von Reiseroman und Staatsutopie: CA 1, 215-216. - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 2 1 1 . 309; Stern I (1976) S. 54. Eupokmos, jüdischer Historiker, schrieb Mitte 2. Jh. v. Chr. Ilepi ttov ev xfi 'Iovocua ßamAiwv: CA 1, 218. - FGrHist III C 2 (1969) S. 672; vgl. Wacholder 1974; Feldman 1984, 401 f.; Pilhofer 1990, 153-156. Hekataios von Abdera (2. Hälfte 4. J h . v. Chr.), philosophierender Lite­ rat: CA 1, 1 8 3 - 2 1 4 ; 2, 4 2 - 4 7 . - Diels-Kranz II (1960) S. 245; FGrHist

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA AP10MM

57

m A (1964) S. 1 1 - 1 2 . 1 9 - 2 1 ; Walter 1980, 154-157; Feldman 1984, 3 9 6 - 4 0 0 ; Pilhofer 1990, 2 6 - 3 3 ; Pucci Ben Zeev 1993. HeUanikos von Lesbos (5. J h . v. Chr.), vielseitiger, fruchtbarer Schrift­ steller: CA 1, 16. - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 106. Hermippos von Smyma (3. Jh. v. Chr.), griechischer Grammatiker: CA 1, 162-165. - Stern I (1976) S. 95; vgl. Feldman 1984, 395f; Pilhofer 1990, 2 0 1 . Hermogenes von Smyma (Identität und Lebenszeit unsicher): CA 1, 2 1 5 216. - Stern I (1976) S. 454. Herodotos (5. Jh.), griechischer Geschichtsschreiber (Hist. 2, 104; cf. 4, 76 ff.): CA 1, 1 6 8 - 1 7 0 ; 2, 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 . 269. - Stern I (1976) S. 2; vgl. Plümacher 1972, 62f; Pilhofer 1990, 195. 205. Hieronymus von Kardia ( 4 . - 3 . Jh. v. Chr.), griechischer Historiker: CA 1, 2 1 3 - 2 1 4 . - FGrHist II B (1962) S. 832; Stern I (1976) S. 19. Homerische Epen (2. Hälfte 8. J h . v. Chr.): CA 1, 12; 2, 155. 246ff.; vgl. im übrigen Kopidakis 1986; Ritook 1989. Isokrates (5.-4. Jh. v. Chr.), attischer Redner (or. 12 [Panathenaikos]): CA 2, 230; siehe Schäublin 1982, 332f. Kadmos von Milet (Datierung unsicher, galt in der Antike als ältester griechischer Historiker): CA 1, 13. - FGrHist III B (1964) S. 457. Kastor von Rhodos (1. Jh. v. Chr.), Rhetor: CA 1, 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 ; 2, 8 3 - 8 4 . - FGrHist II B (1962) S. 1144; Stern I (1976) S. 216. Klearchos von Soloi auf Kypros ( 4 . - 3 . J h . v. Chr.), Peripatetiker, Schü­ ler des Aristoteles: CA 1, 1 7 6 - 1 8 3 . - Stern I (1976) S. 4 9 - 5 0 ; vgl. Feldman 1984, 3 9 5 - 3 9 6 . Komm (Identität unsicher, 1. J h . v. Chr.?): CA 1, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 211; Stern I (1976) S. 351. Lysimachos (um 200 v. Chr.), griechischer Grammatiker und Mythograph: CA 1, 3 0 4 - 3 1 1 ; 2, 1 6 - 1 7 . 20. 145. 236. - FGrHist III C 1 (1958) S. 154-156; Stern I (1976) S. 3 8 3 - 3 8 8 . Manethon (3. Jh. v. Chr.), Priester in Heliopolis, Verfasser einer Ge­ schichte Ägyptens: CA 1, 7 3 - 1 0 5 . 2 2 3 - 2 5 3 . 287; 2, 1 6 - 1 7 . 25. FGrHist III C 1 (1958) S. 7 - 8 . 1 0 - 1 1 . 8 4 - 9 7 ; Waddell 1964, S. 7 6 90. 100-106. 118-146; Stern I (1976) S. 6 6 - 6 8 . 7 4 - 7 5 . 7 8 - 8 1 ; vgl. Feldman 1988, 194f. 249; Pilhofer 1990, 199f; Pucci Ben Zeev 1993. Megasthenes (4.-3. Jh. v. Chr.), Ethnograph, Hauptquelle für die indi­ sche Geschichte von 3 0 0 - 2 9 0 v. Chr.: CA 1, 144. - FGrHist III C 2 (1969) S. 6 0 4 - 6 0 5 . Menandros von Ephesos (2. J h . v. Chr.), Verfasser einer Geschichte der „Griechen und Barbaren", die als zuverlässige Quelle der Geschichte

58

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

Phöniziern (besonders Tyros) gilt: CA 1, 16. 116-127. 154-160. FGrHist III C 2 (1969) S. 7 8 9 - 7 9 4 ; Stern I (1976) S. 120; vgl. G. Garbini, in: Oriental Studies presented to B. S. J. Isserlin, ed. by R. Y. Ebied - M . J. Young, Leiden 1980, 114-127; F. Mazza, in: Atti de 1 convegno internazionale di studi fenici e punici. Coli, di studi fenici X V I (Rom 1983) I, S. 2 3 9 - 2 4 2 . Mnaseas aus Patara in Lykien (um 200 v. Chr.), Schüler des Eratosthenes, verfaßte Werke über Mythen und Gaujxaoioc in geographi­ scher Anordnung: CA 1, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 211; Stern I (1976) S. 99. Nikolaos von Damaskus (lebte bis zum Beginn des 1. Jh. n. Chr.), vielsei­ tiger, fruchtbarer Schriftsteller, Hofhistoriker und - Philosoph Herodes des Großen, verfaßte unter anderem eine Weltgeschichte ('Iaxopiai) in 144 Büchern: CA 2, 8 3 - 8 4 . - FGrHist II A (1961) S. 380; Stern I (1976) S. 239; vgl. Feldman 1984, 4 0 2 - 4 0 6 ; D . S. Williams, in: Scripta Classica Israelica 12, 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , 1 7 6 - 1 7 7 . Philon der Ältere (1. Hälfte 1. Jh. v. Chr.), jüdisch-hellenistischer Histo­ riker: CA 1, 218. - FGrHist III C 2 (1969) S. 689. Philon von Alexandreia ( 1 5 / 1 0 v. Chr. - nach 4 0 n. Chr.), jüdisch­ hellenistischer Theologe und Religionsphilosoph: CA 2, 190-219 (?). Carras (1993) erwägt als Möglichkeit, daß Philons Hypothetica, eine Apologie des Judentums, Quelle für CA 2, 190-219 waren, entscheidet sich aber dafür, eine gemeinsame Quelle beider Texte anzunehmen; vgl. Feldman 1984, 386f. 4 1 0 - 4 1 8 , und Rajak 1994, 153-155. Philostratos (Identität und Datierung unsicher), schrieb über die Ge­ schichte Phöniziern: CA 1, 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 . - FGrHist III C 2 (1969) S. 802. Piaton ( 4 2 8 / 2 7 - 3 4 9 / 4 8 v. Chr.), griechischer Philosoph: CA 2, 1 6 5 169. 2 2 3 - 2 2 5 . 2 5 5 - 2 5 7 . - Dörrie-Baltes 1990, S. 5 8 - 6 0 (mit S. 2 8 8 290). 6 4 - 6 5 (mit S. 310). 1 9 4 - 1 9 7 (mit S. 4 8 4 - 4 8 7 ) . - Zu CA 1, 7. 8 - 1 0 . 165. 177; 2, 190. 193. 205. 224. 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 siehe Schäublin 1982, 318f. 3 3 5 - 3 3 9 . 341; vgl. Pühofer 1990, 35. 58. 195. 204. Polybios (um 200 - nach 120 v. Chr.), hellenistischer Historiker: CA 2, 8 3 - 8 4 . - Stern I (1976) S. 115; vgl. Eckstein 1990. Polykrates von Athen (lebte etwa um 4 4 0 - 3 7 0 v. Chr.), athenischer Rhetor: CA 1, 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 . - FGrHist III B (1964) S. 730. Poseidonios von Apameia (um 1 3 5 - 5 1 / 5 0 v. Chr.), stoischer Philosoph, Historiker, Geograph und Ethnograph: CA 2, 7 9 - 8 0 . 89. 9 1 - 9 6 . FGrHist II A (1961) S. 263f.; Stern I (1976) S. 145f; vgl. J. D . Gauger, in: Historia 28, 1979, 2 1 1 - 2 2 4 ; Rajak 1994, 155; vgl. St. Goranson, in: Journal o f j e w i s h Studies 45, 1994, 2 9 5 - 2 9 8 .

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

59

Pythagoras von Samos (Ende 6. J h . v. Chr.), griechischer Philosoph: CA 1, 162-163. - Diels-Kranz I (1961) 104f.; vgl. Pilhofer 1990, 2 0 0 205. Strabon von Amaseia ( 6 4 / 6 3 v. Chr. - nach 23 n. Chr.), stoischer Hi­ storiker und Geograph: CA 2, 8 3 - 8 4 . - FGrHist II A (1961) S. 4 3 3 ; Stern I (1976) S. 268; vgl. Feldman 1984, 406f. Testamentum vetus - In gewisser Weise gehört zu den Fontes des Josephus - textes auch die Bibel, und zwar, wie m a n heute weiß, nur teilweise (besonders für den Pentateuch) die hebräische Bibel bezie­ hungsweise eine aramäische Paraphrase, überwiegend die Septuaginta, genauer: eine Septuaginta eigener (vielleicht protolukianischer) Art, die von der uns erhaltenen textlich etwas verschieden war. W e n n ­ gleich in Contra Apionem nicht, wie in den Antiquitates Iudaicae, die Bibel durchgehend als Quelle der Darstellung diente, ist von ihrer gele­ gentlichen Benutzung jedoch auch für die Schrift gegen Apion aus­ zugehen. Im übrigen besaß wohl Josephus zeit seines Lebens zumindest das Bibelexemplar, das Titus ihm nach dem Fall Jerusalems geschenkt hatte (Vita 418). - Zur Sache Schreckenberg 1968, 170 und 1972, 65f; Feldman 1984, 121-191; Nodet I (1990) X X V I I - X X I X ; Feldman 1994, 41f. Theodotos (2. Jh. v. Chr.?): CA 1, 216. - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 211; III C 2 (1969) S. 692. Theophibs (2. Jh. v. Chr.): CA 1, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 211; III C 2 (1969) S. 694; Stern I (1976) S. 127; vgl. Walter 1980, S. 109. Theophrastos ( 3 7 2 / 7 0 - 2 8 8 / 8 6 v. Chr.), Schüler und Nachfolger des Aristoteles im Peripatos: CA 1, 166-167; vgl. Stern 1973, 1 5 9 - 1 6 3 ; Pilhofer 1990, 202. Theopompos von Chios (4. Jh. v. Chr.), Historiker: CA 1, 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 . FGrHist III B (1964) S. 6 0 1 . Tkukydides (lebte bis u m 4 0 0 v. Chr.), Historiker. - Z u m Verhältnis von CA 1, 12 zu Thukydides 1, 3, 3 siehe Schäublin 1982, 319; vgl. Plümacher 1972, 6 2 - 6 3 . Timagenes von Alexandreia (1. Jh. v. Chr.), Rhetor und Historiker: CA 2, 8 3 - 8 4 . - FGrHist II A (1961) S. 321; Stern I (1976) S. 224. Timaios von Tauromenion (4.-3. Jh. v. Chr.), Historiker: CA 1, 1 6 - 1 7 . 221. - FGrHist III B (1964) S. 583. 644. Zopyrion (schrieb über jüdische Geschichte, Datierung nicht bekannt): CA 1, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 . - FGrHist I A (1957) S. 211; Stern I (1976) S. 4 5 1 . Sonstiges (Sammelzitate in FGrHist): CA 1, 2 - 3 : III C 2, S. 701; CA 1, 17: III B, S. 20. 161; CA 1, 28: III C 1, S. 239; CA 1, 46: III C 2,

60

HEINZ

SCHRECKENBERG

S. 709; CA 1, 58: III C 2, S. 701; CA 1, 6 4 - 6 5 : III C 2, S. 931; CA 1, 6 9 - 7 3 : III C 1, S. 701; CA 1, 1 0 6 - 1 1 1 : III C 2, S. 701. 826f.; CA 1, 128f.: III C 2, S. 701; CA 1, 143: III C 2, S. 827; CA 1, 1 6 1 219: III C 2, S. 7 0 1 - 7 0 3 ; CA 1, 172-174: III C 1, S. 546f.; CA 1, 176-179: III C 2, S. 704; CA 1, 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 : III C 2, S. 705; CA 2, 7 9 96: III C 2, S. 705; CA 2, 140: III C 1, S. 239; CA 2, 205: III G 1, S. 239. Der Nutzen der vorstehend zusammengestellten Informationen wird nicht beeinträchtigt dadurch, daß der jüdische Historiker die genannten Autoren nicht sämtlich selbst gelesen hat, auch nicht dadurch, daß im Einzelfall n o c h Echtheitsdiskussionen andauern, wie bei (Ps.-) Hekataios. Ohnehin neigt man, nach einer Zeit der Hyperkritik, heute dazu, die Frage nach der „Echtheit" von Quellenzitaten in Contra Apionem differenzierter zu sehen. Kennzeichnend dafür ist etwa die Untersuchung von Gauger (1982) zur Authentizität der HekataiosZitate (vgl. mutans mutandis M. Pucci Ben Zeev, in Athenaeum 82, 1994, 3 1 - 4 0 , zu d e m Ant. 14, 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 zitierten Senatsbeschluß). Es ist jedenfalls sehr unwahrscheinlich, daß Josephus selbst Falsifikate anfertigte; war er sich doch, als er in den neunziger Jahren, also kurz vor der Abfassung der Schrift gegen Apion, seine Antiquitaies Iudaicae beendet hatte, bewußt, daß es „Zeugen" gab, die seine Angaben, w e n n sie auf Wahrheit beruhten, bestätigen oder, wenn sie falsch wären, widerlegen könnten (Ant. 20, 266). Er beansprucht ja, und dies in Konfrontation zu literarischen Gegnern und Konkurrenten, „seriöse Literatur" (\iexd xivoq a n o D Ö r ^ y£Ypa|xp,eva) zu schreiben. D a z u hätte das (von Literaten-Kollegen leicht nachweisbare) Fingieren von Quellenzitaten nicht gepaßt.

IV. Die Textzeugen und ihre Beziehungen zueinander Bevor wir uns mit den einzelnen Textzeugen befassen, ist es nützlich, den Blick zurückzulenken auf den Zeitpunkt der Publikation von Contra Apionem. Hier ist die Beziehung des Autors zu einem literarisch interessierten einflußreichen Epaphroditos von einiger Bedeutung; denn dieser hatte ihn ermutigt, die Antiquitates Iudaicae fertigzustellen (Ant. 1, 8), diesem hatte er das fertige Werk zusammen mit der daran angehängten Autobiographie gewidmet (Vita 430; vgl. Ant. 1,8) und danach ebenso die Schrift gegen Apion (CA 1, 1; 2, 1.296). Ist

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

61

es nun der von Domitian ( 9 1 - 9 6 n. Chr.) hingerichtete Freigelassene und im Amt für Bittschriften tätige Sekretär Neros (Tacitus, Ann. 15, 55; Sueton, Nero 49), so erschien Contra Apionem nicht nach dem Jahre 96; ist er der Grammatiker und Sammler einer großen Biblio­ thek, der in R o m zur Zeit Neros und noch unter Nerva (96-98) lebte , so läge das Erscheinen einige Jahre später, was wahrschein­ licher ist (anders Hölscher 1916, 1940f, allerdings mit beachtlichen Argumenten). Vermutlich hat Josephus die Antiquitates Iudaicae und Contra Apionem im „Selbstverlag" veröffentlicht. Dieses Verfahren war verbreitet und ist uns zum Beispiel von Diodor (1. Jh. v. Chr., lebte unter anderem in Alexandreia und Rom), Dionysios von Halikarnass (1. Jh. v. Chr., wirkte 3 8 - 3 7 v. Chr. in Rom), Plutarch ( 4 6 - 1 2 0 n. Chr.) und Pausanias (2. Jh. n. Chr.) bekannt . Solche Herstellung von Büchern in eigener Regie war leichter, wenn der Verfasser Be­ ziehungen zu einflußreichen Leuten hatte. Für sein Bellum Iudaicum hatte Josephus noch die Gönnerschaft des Titus, der sogar eine Art Imprimatur erteilte und die Veröffentlichung ausdrücklich anordnete (Vita 363; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 174). Das Büchermachen konnte vor allem auf zwei Wegen vonstatten gehen: Der Autor diktierte sein Werk, so wie wir zum Beispiel von Origenes wissen, „daß er ein eigenes Büro von Schnell- und Schönschreibern beiderlei Geschlechts unterhielt" , oder er übergab sein Manuskript einem Verleger, der je nach seinen Absatzerwartungen die Vervielfältigung veranlaßte. So bemühte sich Atticus, Ciceros Freund, verlegerisch u m dessen und anderer Autoren Texte. D a ß die Verfasser nicht selten ihr Werk einer Person von Rang und Stand widmeten, hatte jedenfalls immer auch den Grund, Publikation und Verkauf zu erleichtern. W e n n Josephus beiläufig mitteilt, er habe sein Bellum Iudaicum „vielen" Römern und Glaubensgenossen „verkauft" (CA 1, 51), so darf man Gleiches viel­ leicht auch für seine anderen Werke annehmen. Im übrigen hatte es einen guten Grund, daß der Historiker am Ende seiner Antiquitates Iudaicae vermerkt, diese Schrift umfasse 20 Bücher und 60,000 Zeilen (Ant 20, 267); denn diese Gesamtzeilenzahl erleichterte einerseits die Honorarberechnung für das Schreiben, sicherte andererseits aber auch den Autor gegen mögliche Auslassungen und Interpolationen. So 25

26

27

2 5

S o im 10. J h . d a s S u d a - L e x i k o n (ed. A. A d l e r , L e i p z i g 1 9 2 8 - 1 9 3 8 ) , P a r s I I (1931) p p . 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 s u b v o c e 'E7ca9p68ixo<;. H . E r b s e bei H u n g e r 1 9 8 8 , 2 8 8 ; B l a n c k 1 9 9 2 , 117. Blanck 1992 z u E u s e b i u s , Hist. eccl. 6, 2 3 , 2; vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 9 2 , 5 9 . 2 6

2 7

62

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

befinden sich stichometrische Zeichen a m R a n d vieler erhaltener literarischer Papyri . Bevor wir nun zur Auflistung der Textzeugen übergeben, ist zu beachten, daß der älteste Zeuge der Autor selbst ist, nämlich durch Parallelen und B e z u g n a h m e n innerhalb der opera Iosephi. D i e folgende Zusammenstellung versucht - o h n e Vollständigkeitsan­ spruch - , ausgehend von den beiden Büchern Contra Apionem deren Be­ züge zu den Anüquitates Iudaicae und zum Bellum Iudaicum zu definieren: 28

1, 31: Ant. 3, 277; 1, 35: Art. 3, 276; 1, 50: Bell. 1, 3; 1, 1 0 9 f f . : ^ . 8, 50ff.; 1, 117ff.: Ant. 8, 144ff.; 1, 130ff.: Ant. 8, 144ff.; 1, 130: Ant. 8, 93; 1, 135K: Ant. 10, 220ff.; 1, 144: Ant. 10, 227ff.; 1, 1 4 6 f f . : ^ . 10, 231; 1, 168ff.: Ant. 8, 260ff.; 1, 205ff.: Ant. 12, 5ff.; 1, 209: Ant. 12, 6; 1, 284: Ant. 3, 278; 1, 286: Ant. 2, 228; 2, 37: Ant. 14, 188; 2, 120: Bell. 6, 293; 2, 193: Ant. 4, 200f; 2, 199ff.: Ant. 4, 244ff.; 2, 205: Ant. 3, 262; 2, 215: Ant. 4, 251; 2, 117: Ant. 4, 260; 2, 237: Ant. 4, 207.

A. Die Handschrißen des griechischen Textes Laurentianus 69, 22. Firenze, Bibl. Laur., plut. 69 cod. 22 (11. Jh.), 38 Blätter (= Sigle L in den Editionen von Contra Apionem). - CA 2, 5 1 113 (nach fiaGikeiaq bis vor rnv rcopeiccv) fehlt, ein Sachverhalt, der in der Handschrift nicht ohne weiteres erkennbar wird, vielmehr nur durch die Randnotiz eines - mit d e m Kopisten nicht identischen Korrektors des 11. Jh. kenntlich gemacht ist: (A,ei7t)ei AAa (boei rcevxe. D e r Laurentianus 69, 22 bietet einen an sehr vielen Stellen ver­ derbten und durch Interpolationen entstellten Text. Alle weiteren (jün­ geren) griechischen Handschriften haben die große Lücke 2, 5 1 - 1 1 3 und andere Verderbnisse mit dieser Handschrift gemeinsam, so daß sie als direkte oder indirekte Apographa zu gelten haben: Hauniensis Nr. 1570 (15. Jh.), Kopenhagen, Königliche Bibliothek. Niese zitiert ihn einmal (zu CA 1, 81); vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 22. Schleusingensis (bzw. Hennebergensis) gr. 1 (16. Jh.), Schleusingen, Gym­ nasialbibliothek; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 42. Parisinus gr. 1815, Sammelhandschrift des 16. Jh., enthält fol. 325 recto - 348 verso CA 1, 1-2, 133; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 34. Cantabrigmsis LI. IV. 12 (Eliensis), Sammelhandschrift des 15. Jh. ent-

Z u r S a c h e S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 175 u n d B l a n c k 1992, 124f.

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

63

hält fol. 1-21 CA 1, 1-2,133 und ist insofern eine Art Zwilling des Parisinus gr. 1815, auch hinsichtlich der Lacuna CA 2, 5 1 - 1 1 3 ; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 16. Laurentianus 28, 29, Sammelhandschrift des 15. Jh. mit umfangrei­ chen Exzerpten aus CA 1, 7 3 - 2 5 2 ; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 18. Vaticanus Rossianus gr. 25 (894), 15. Jh., enthält CA 1, 3 1 9 - 2 , 1 4 2 ; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 39. Vaticanus Barberin(ian)us gr. 100 (I 100), 1 5 . / 1 6 . Jh. (10 Blätter), ent­ hält CA 1, 1-141; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 39.

B. Editio princeps des griechischen Textes OAxxßiot) IcoofiTcoi) 'Io\)8aiicf}<; dpxaioX^yiaq ÄxSyoi K. 'Iovöancnq a t a o a e a x ; Aoyoi Ei<; xohq M<xKKaßa{o\)<; Xoyoq. r\ rcepi atnoKpdxopoq A.oyiafioa). Mavii Iosephi opera. Froben. Basileae 1544. C u m Imp. Maiestatis privilegio ad annos V. - Diese von Arnoldus Peraxylus Arlenius (unter Mitarbeit des Sigismund Gelenius) besorgte Erstausgabe des griechi­ schen Textes der Werke des Josephus hat als Basis den C o d e x Escorialensis 304 (geschrieben 1542; vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 17f), weitere Handschriften sowie die Epitome antiquitatum . Wesent­ lichen Anteil an der Beschaffung der Handschriften hatte der ange­ sehene spanische Bibliophile und Humanist D o n D i e g o Hurtado de Mendoza (1503-1575), 1 5 3 9 - 1 5 4 7 Botschafter Kaiser Karls V. in Venedig. Dieser bildete mit dem Flamen Arlenius, seinem gelehrten Bibliothekar, in Trient am Rande des dortigen Konzils (1545-1563), bei dem er des Kaisers offizieller Vertreter war, eine Art Arbeitsge­ meinschaft, vor allem den Text des Corpus Aristotelicum betreffend. Mendoza beschäftigte eine Anzahl von unter der Leitung des Arlenius tätigen griechischen Kopisten und beschaffte von Venedig (samt der dortigen Bibliotheca Marciana), das seinerzeit ein bedeutender Bücher­ markt war, griechische Handschriften, die vor allem in den Jahren vor der Eroberung Konstantinopels (1453) zahlreich von dort den W e g nach Venedig fanden. Vor diesem Hintergrund und in diesem U m f e l d entsteht die Editio princeps des griechischen Josephustextes. Neben dem Escorialensis 304 ist benutzt der Marcianus 380 (s. Schrekkenberg 1972, 43), der Laurentianus 69, 10 (s. Schreckenberg 1972, 29

30

2 9

S e p a r a t e d i e r t v o n B . N i e s e 1 8 8 7 - 1 8 9 6 (vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 6 8 , 113); z u r E d i t i o p r i n c e p s siehe a u c h S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 6 8 , 10f.; S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 9 , 1 6 1 . S i e h e d a z u H a r l f i n g e r 1 9 8 0 , 469ff. 3 0

64

HEINZ

SCHRECKENBERG

18) und die - zwischen 1470 und 1544 oft edierte - alte lateinische Übersetzung (s. Schreckenberg 1968, 1-10; ders. 1979, 163-167). Für Contra Apionem benutzte Arlenius ein Apographon des Laurentianus 69, 22, nicht ohne, wie überall, so auch hier gelehrte „Verbesserun­ gen" anzubringen. D a ß darunter gelegentlich auch eine hinsichtlich ihrer Provenienz nicht mehr verifizierbare handschriftliche Lesart ist, kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, und auch deshalb gehört diese Editio princeps in die Textzeugenliste. Arlenius' Ausgabe von 1544 begründete eine bis zu den Editionen von I. Bekker (Leipzig 1 8 5 5 1856) und S. A. Naber (Leipzig 1888-1896) reichende Texttradition, die erst durch Nieses Editio maior critica (Berlin 1885-1895; ein viel­ fach revidierter und verbesserter Abdruck ohne den kritischen Appa­ rat erschien Berlin 1 8 8 8 - 1 8 9 5 , in gewisser Weise eine Ausgabe letzter Hand) beendet und abgelöst wurde . 31

C. Die lateinische Übersetzung des 6. Jahrhunderts Im Jahre 555 gründete Cassiodorus, ein angesehener Staatsmann und Gelehrter, auf den Gütern seiner Familie in Squillace (Bruttien, nahe der Meerenge von Messina) das Kloster Vivarium, dessen Bibliothek zu einem Bildungszentrum Italiens wurde. Seine Schüler und Freunde mit N a m e n sind bekannt der Presbyter Bellator, Epiphanios und Mutianus - regte er zu zahlreichen Werken an, unter anderem zu einer Josephusübersetzung „in 22 Büchern" (d.h. Antiquitates Iudaicae und Contra Apionem), damit offenbar einem großen Desiderat entspre­ chend; denn die Kenntnis der für christliche Theologen überaus nützlichen Werke des jüdischen Historikers war im lateinischen Westen durch die höher gewordene Sprachbarriere arg behindert. Immerhin war das Bellum Iudaicum bereits doppelt verfügbar, einmal in Gestalt der freien Bearbeitung des sogenannten Hegesippus (4. Jh.) und der wörtlichen Übersetzung Rufins (+ 410; s. Schreckenberg 1972, 56ff.). D i e noch vorhandene Lücke wurde also jetzt gefüllt, wobei allerdings die Vita ganz beiseite blieb, weshalb in manchen frühen Drucken des lateinischen Josephus ersatzweise das einschlägige Kapitel 13 aus De viris illustribus des Hieronymus abgedruckt wurde. Cassiodorus berichtet in seinen Institutiones (I, 17, 1 [ed. R. A. B.

3 1

Z u D e t a i l s d e r E d i t i o n s g e s c h i c h t e s. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1979, 161f. - T h a c k e r a y (I, 1 9 2 6 , p . X I X ) h a t d e n W e r t d e r E d i t i o p r i n c e p s ü b e r s c h ä t z t m i t s e i n e m Urteil: "of first-rate i m p o r t a n c e " .

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

65

Mynors, 1961, p. 55]), einem Studienführer für seine Mönche: Hunc (sc. Iosephum) tarnen ab amicis nostris, quoniam est subtilis nimis et multiplex, magno labore in libris viginti duobus converti fecimus in Latinum, qui etiam et alios Septem libros captivitatis Iudaicae mirabili nitore conscripsit, quam translationem alii Hieronymo, alii Ambrosio, alii deputant Rufino etc. V o n diesen 22 Büchern sind heute erst sieben kritisch ediert, nämlich Antiquitates Iudaicae Buch 1-5 von Franz Blatt (1958) und Contra Apionem von Carolus Boysen (1898) . Die von Cassiodorus in Auftrag gegebene lateinische Übersetzung ist in ihrem Wert sehr eingeschränkt dadurch, daß ihr griechischer Kodex stark verderbt war, so daß der (oder die) Übersetzer, dessen Griechischkenntnis ohnehin nicht die beste war, sich oft nur zu helfen wußte durch eine ebenso wörtliche wie unverständliche Wiedergabe oder durch eine freie - teils auslassende, teils zufügende - Paraphrase, die sich ihrerseits v o m genuinen Wortlaut und Textsinn entfernte. Aber immerhin erlauben gerade sehr wörtliche (falsche) Überset­ zungen mitunter den Rückschluß auf den originalen Text. Besonders negativ wirkte sich auf die Qualität dieser Übersetzung aus, daß der Übersetzer nicht selten dem Gedankengang des Autors Josephus nicht folgen konnte und auch syntaktische Zusammenhänge nicht begriff. Immerhin war die griechische Vorlage des Lateiners noch von man­ chen Interpolationen frei, die den Laurentianus 69, 22 verunstalten. 32

D . Nebmüberlieferung (Zitate, Entlehnungen, Anklänge) Die älteste griechische Handschrift des Textes von Contra Apionem ist erst im 11. Jahrhundert entstanden, so daß die indirekte Überliefe­ rung, also zum Beispiel wörtliche und nichtwörtliche Übernahmen, Reminiszenzen und sonstige Bezugnahmen späterer Autoren, helfen, die Zeit vom 2 . - 1 1 . Jahrhundert zu überbrücken: 1. Nur am Rande ist hier auf Taätus ( 5 6 - 1 2 0 n. Chr.) hinzuweisen, dessen Judenberichte im 5. Buch der Historiae da und dort Affini­ täten zu Josephus aufweisen, vor allem zu dessen Bellum Iudaicum. Unter anderem hat CA 1, 304ff. eine Parallele in Gestalt von Historiae 5, 3. Indes lassen sich solche Sachkonkordanzen wohl auf eine bei­ den gemeinsame Quelle zurückführen oder, wahrscheinlicher, gleiche

3 2

Z u r lateinischen Ü b e r s e t z u n g siehe die P r a e f a t i o b e i B o y s e n , p p . X L I I I - X L I V , u n d Blatt's E i n l e i t u n g S. 17ff.; f e r n e r S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 5 8 - 6 1 ; d e r s e l b e 1977, 157; N o d e t 1987, 3 4 2 - 3 5 4 ; z u H e g e s i p p u s siehe S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 9 2 , 7 1 - 7 3 .

66

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

Informationen konnten auf verschiedenen W e g e n zu ihnen gelangen. Die für eine Abhängigkeit des Tacitus von Josephus vorgetragenen Gründe sind jedenfalls unzureichend . 2. Gemeinsamkeiten wie die von CA 2, 2 2 2 - 2 2 5 mit Plutarch (+ nach 120 n. Chr.), Lycurgus 3 1 , 2~3, sind wohl ebenfalls nur zufallig; denn Josephus scheint eine Schrift AaK£8ai|j,ovicöv noAixeia gekannt zu haben, verfügte also über Sparta-Informationen ähnlicher Art, wie sie Plutarch im „Lycurgus" verarbeitete . 3. Deutliche Affinitäten zu Contra Apionem (z.B. 1, 10) zeigt die 'EniaxoXr\ npbq xohc, "EXXt\vaq (c. 31) des syrischen christlichen Apologeten Tatian, der durch Justinos Martyr in R o m zum Christentum bekehrt wurde und dort bis 172 n. Chr., später auch in seiner Heimat, eine Lehrtätigkeit ausübte. Es geht in der „Epistole" thematisch um den Altersbeweis: Moses ist älter als die griechische rcaiöeioc. Tatian konnte in R o m gut mit Josephus' Schriften bekannt werden, waren sie doch dort in mindestens einer öffentlichen Bibliothek verfugbar, wie Eusebios berichtet (Hist. eccl. 3, 9: xoix; 8e onovSaoQevxaq oroxtp T^yovq ßißÄ,io0f|icn<; d^icoönvoci). D o c h ist die Frage der Josephusbenutzung Tatians noch in der Diskussion . 4. Bereits klar konturiert ist dagegen die Abhängigkeit von Contra Apionem (1, 93-126) bei Theophilus Antiochenus (+ nach 181/182) in seiner Schrift A d Autolycum (3, 2 0 - 2 3 ) , die u m 180 n. Chr. entstand. Weitere Affinitäten sind erkennbar A d Autolycum 3, 2 (zu CA 1, 37.53), 3, 19 (zu G l 1, 92), 3, 29 (zu CA 1, 128ff.). Allerdings zitiert Theophilus seine Quelle frei, und sein Text ist schlecht erhalten, so daß eher A d Autolycum der Emendation durch den Josephustext bedarf als daß dies umgekehrt möglich und hilfreich wäre . 5. Tertullian (+ u m 222) erwähnt Josephus' Schrift gegen Apion folgendermaßen: Iudaeus Iosepkus, antiquitatum Iudaicarum vernaculus vindex (Apologeticum 19, 6 [CSEL 69, 51]), dies im Zusammenhang des Altersbeweises zugunsten der jüdischen Tradition im Vergleich zur griechischen Überlieferung. Diese Erwähnung ist inhaltsbezogen auf ein Hauptthema von Contra Apionem und kein Argument für eine bestimmte Form des Werktitels, etwa Ilepi xfj<; xcov 'IoDÖociow ap%ai6xnxo<;. D a ß Tertullian CA 1, 103 ff. direkt (und nicht über eine Mittelquelle) 33

34

35

36

3 3

S i e h e S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 6 9 ; vgl. a u c h S t e r n II (1980) lff. u n d F e l d m a n 1 9 8 8 , 203f. D a z u S c h ä u b l i n 1 9 8 2 , 3 2 4 . 333f. S i e h e P ü h o f e r 1 9 9 0 , 255f. 2 6 7 . S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 7 0 ; d e r s . 1 9 9 2 , 5 3 ; vgl. P ü h o f e r 1990, 2 6 6 - 2 7 3 . 3 4

3 5

3 6

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

67

benutzt und überhaupt apologetisch von Josephus gelernt hat, hat C. Aziza vermutet, doch bedarf das noch der Diskussion . 6. Der Presbyter Hippolytos (+ 235 n. Chr.) hat in seiner Schrift Kaxöc Tiaaßv aipeaecov ekeyxoc, (Refutatio omnium haeresium) 9, 1 8 29 den Bericht des Josephus über die Essener, Pharisäer und Sadduzäer (Bell. 2, 119-166) benutzt. Innerhalb seines Referates ergeben sich auch Berühungspunkte zu Contra Apionem. So gibt es eine gewisse Entsprechung von CA 2, 154. 156. 171. 173 zu Ref. 9, 30, 3. Text­ kritisch verwertbar ist das aber k a u m . 7. Textkritisch nutzbare Zitate aus der Schrift gegen Apion bietet Origenes (+ 2 5 3 / 2 5 4 n. Chr.) nicht, jedoch kennt er diese Schrift gut; denn er verweist auf sie: Svvaxbv yöcp TÖV ßovXojxevov dvayvcovai TOC Yeypawieva OAmnq) 'I(DOT|7t(prcepiTfjq TCÖV 'Iouöaicov dp/aiornToq ev 8\>aiv (Contra Celsum 1, 16; vgl. 4, 11 und 1, 15 sein über CA 1, 1 6 3 165. 183-214 erfolgendes Referat zu Hekataios von Abdera). Origenes scheint in der von ihm begründeten Bibliothek zu Caesarea - diese Stadt war damals ein bedeutendes Kulturzentrum und zugleich Haupt­ ort des palästinischen Christentums - über Josephus' Werke verfügt zu haben. Sie vermittels des seinerzeit florierenden Buchhandels zum Beispiel aus Alexandreia oder R o m zu beschaffen, war nicht schwer. Vielleicht sind noch zu Lebzeiten des jüdischen Historikers Exem­ plare seiner Werke auch übers Meer verkauft worden; denn der Autor lebte zwar seit dem Frühjahr 71 in R o m , hatte aber wohl weiterhin auch auswärtige Kontakte, zum Teil auf Grund seiner Heiraten vor und nach 71: Seine zweite Frau war eine kriegsgefangene Jüdin aus Caesarea (Vita 414), die dritte Ehe schloß er 6 9 / 7 0 in Alexandreia (Vita 415), und seine vierte Frau schließlich war eine vornehme kre­ tische Jüdin (Vita 427). Ihm konnte - w e n n auch letztlich erfolglos nachgesagt werden, er habe Kontakte zu aufrührerischen J u d e n in Kyrene gehabt (Vita 424). Möglicherweise ist Josephus auch nach 71 zu Besuchen in seiner Heimat gewesen, w o er dank der Gunst des Kaiserhauses viel Grundbesitz hatte (Vita 422. 425. 429), der viel­ leicht nicht nur von R o m aus verwaltet wurde. N o c h lange nach dem Jahre 70 hatte er Kontakte zu überlebenden Angehörigen des jüdischen Priesteradels sowie zu K ö n i g Agrippa II. (50 - u m 96 n. Chr.) beziehungsweise zum Königshaus . Mit einem Wort: Josephus 37

38

39

3 7

3 8

3 9

Z u r S a c h e A z i z a 1977; vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 9 2 , 55f. S i e h e S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 72f.; d e r s . 1 9 7 7 , 14. S e t h S c h w a r t z 1990, 138. 159. 2 0 9 - 2 1 4 ; vgl. G o o d m a n 1 9 9 4 .

68

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

war eine Art Weltbürger mit weitgespannten Interessen und Beziehungen, der noch zu seinen Lebzeiten auch für eine weite Verbreitung seiner literarischen Werke sorgen konnte. Das östliche Becken des Mittelmeeres, von Tausenden von Schiffen befahren, war eher eine Brücke als ein Hindernis. D a ß 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 Jahre nach dem T o d e des jüdischen Historikers seine Schriften in Caesarea verfugbar waren, kann also nicht verwundern. Hinzu kommt, daß Origenes selbst sich u m 212 zeitweise in R o m aufhielt , w o , wie wir sahen, in mindestens einer Bibliothek Josephus' Werke vorhanden waren - von den Möglichkeiten des Buchhandels ganz abgesehen . 40

41

8. D e r spätplatonische Philosoph und Plotin-Schüler Porphyrios (um 2 3 3 - 3 0 1 / 3 0 5 n. Chr.), der einen großen Teil seines Lebens in R o m verbrachte, hatte dort leichten Zugang zu den Werken des Josephus. Seine Interessen waren jedoch andere als die der christlichen T h e o logen seiner Zeit, und so zitiert er lediglich bestimmte Passagen im Bellum Iudaicum u n d in Contra Apionem (flepi änox^c, £\iyi>x(ov [ D e abstinentia] 4, 14 zu CA 2, 213). V o n Josephus' letzter Schrift spricht er als (TCX) npbq TOXK; EXXi\vaq (ßißAia) (De abstin. 4, 11), was der Sache nach nicht unrichtig ist. Indes ist dieser Werktitel, wenn es überhaupt ein solcher im engeren Sinne ist, noch willkürlicher als 7tepi xf|<; TCOV 'Io\)8aicov dp%aioTr|TO<; bei Origenes, was wenigstens in CA 1, 217 und CA 2, 1 eine gewisse Stütze hätte, und als Contra Apionem. In CA 2, 213 bezeugt Porphyrios die unter Umständen erwägenswerte Lesart KeXeuei icdv mit LLat gegen Eusebius; dagegen ist TCOV cruvepYcc£o|i8vcöv (statt des genuinen TCOV epYa^op-evcov) vermutlich eine sekundäre Wucherung aus d e m (in den Handschriften oft zu I mutierenden) Schluß-N von TCOV . 9. D i e umfangreiche Benutzung v o n Contra Apionem durch den Kirchenvater Eusebius ( 2 6 0 / 2 6 5 - 3 3 9 / 3 4 0 n. Chr.) ist bekannt und f/

42

43

4 0

E r wollte d o r t „ d i e u r a l t e K i r c h e v o n R o m s e h e n " (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6, 14, 10); vgl M i z u g a k i 1 9 8 7 , 3 2 7 . V g l . M . B o d m e r b e i H u n g e r 1 9 8 8 , 6 1 : „ I m ersten J h . d e r Kaiserzeit entwickelte sich d u r c h d e n V e r s a n d d e r B ü c h e r v o n R o m a u s in alle L ä n d e r des Imperium R o m a n u m e i n w e i t v e r z w e i g t e r W e l t b u c h h a n d e l " . Z u O r i g e n e s siehe i m übrigen S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 7 3 - 7 6 ; d e r s . 1 9 9 2 , 5 7 - 6 3 ; d e L a n g e 1976; Feldman 1990. Z u P o r p h y r i o s vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 76f.; S t e r n I I (1980) S. 4 3 5 - 4 3 8 ; F e l d m a n 1984, 844f.; P ü h o f e r 1 9 9 0 , 194. Sie ist detailliert aufgelistet b e i S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 8 2 - 8 4 . 183; dort a u c h z u G e o r g i o s Synkellos (+ n a c h 810) u n d d e n s o g e n a n n t e n C r a m e r i a n e c d o t a (Anecdota G r a e c a e c o d d . m a n u s c r i p t i s Bibl. R e g . Parisiensis, ed. J . A . C r a m e r , 4. Bde., Oxford 1 8 3 9 - 1 8 4 1 ) , b e i d e (indirekte) Z e u g e n d e r J o s e p h u s z i t a t e i n d e r ( n u r a r m e n i s c h e r h a l t e n e n ) „ C h r o n i k " d e s E u s e b i u s ; z u G e o r g i o s Synkellos siehe j e t z t A . A . M o s s 4 1

4 2

4 3

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

69

deshalb hier nicht zu wiederholen. Unter textkritischen Gesichtspunk­ ten ist jedoch der Umstand nachdrücklich zu betonen, daß Niese vor mehr als hundert Jahren noch nicht über eine brauchbare EusebiusAusgabe verfügte, die Zeugengruppen des Eusebius-Textes weithin unrichtig bewertete und dementsprechend zu sehr vielen Fehlentschei­ dungen bei der Examinatiö und Emendatio des Textes von Contra Apionem kam. Das nahm solche Ausmaße an, daß der Eusebius-Editor K. Mras Nieses Ausgabe der Schrift gegen Apion als „verfehlt" bezeichnen mußte . Als Bischof von Caesarea verfügte Eusebius über eine ausgezeichnete Bibliothek, die schon unter seinem Lehrer Pamphilos, der die Arbeit des Origenes fortgesetzt hatte, 30,000 Rollen umfaßte. Gegen Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts wurden übrigens die dor­ tigen Bestände, darunter wohl auch die Buchrollen mit Josephustexten, in Pergamentkodizes umgeschrieben . Eusebius redet einmal von xöt jcepi xfjq 'Io\)8a{cov dpxaioxrixoq, ev oiq dvTippf|aei<;rcpö<;'ATUCOVOC TÖV ypajLi^laxiKÖv Korea 'Io\)8a{cov rnviicdSe o w c d ^ a v T a Ä,6yov mnovcyzai rcpöq aXkovq (Hist. eccl. 3, 9, 4; vgl. Praep. ev. 8, 7, 21 und 10, 6, 15), was lediglich die - ihrerseits nur mutmaßende - Titelgebung des Origenes wiederholt, aber den Ausschlag gegeben hat, daß dies bis heute als genuiner Werktitel gilt. Auch schlägt Eusebius mit npbq 'Arcicovcc die Brücke zu Hieronymus, wie wir gleich sehen werden. 44

45

10. Der Kirchenvater Hieronymus (+ 420) muß das Gerücht demen­ tieren, er habe den Josephus aus d e m Griechischen ins Lateinische übersetzt (Epist. 71, 5, 2): Josephi libros. . . falsus ad te rumor pertulit a me esse translatos (vgl. oben zur lateinischen Übersetzung des 6. Jahr­ hunderts: Cassiodor weiß, daß neben Ambrosius und Rufinus auch Hieronymus als Übersetzer des Bellum Iudaicum vermutet wurde). Aber daß solches überhaupt kolportiert werden konnte und in die­ sem Zusammenhang hochrangige christliche Gelehrte und T h e o l o ­ gen genannt wurden, beleuchtet gut die Wertschätzung, welcher sich der jüdische Historiker in christlichen Kreisen erfreute. Aus der Sicht des 5 . / 6 . Jahrhunderts schien es durchaus glaubhaft, daß der Bibel­ übersetzer Hieronymus auch Josephusübersetzer war. Kein Wunder, wenn nach der Vulgata Josephus' Werke zu den im Mittelalter a m

h a m m e r (ed.), G e o r g i o s Synkellos, E c l o g a c h r o n o g r a p h i c a , L e i p z i g 1 9 8 4 . V g l . a u c h N o d e t 1987, 3 3 1 . M r a s 1944, 2 2 0 ; vgl. Eusebius, W e r k e . A c h t e r B a n d . D i e P r a e p a r a t i o evangelica. T e i l I—II, Berlin 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 5 6 (siehe b e s o n d e r s I, p . I V ) ; d i e D e t a i l s d e r K r i t i k a n Niese b e i S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 7 , 1 5 8 - 1 6 2 . S i e h e B l a n c k 1 9 9 2 , 176. 4 4

4 5

70

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

meisten abgeschriebenen Büchern gehörten! - Hieronymus' sehr zahl­ reiche Bezugnahmen auf den jüdischen Historiker sind meist text­ kritisch wenig nützlich, so auch In Danielem 2, 5, 1 (CChr 75 A, p. 220) zu CA 1, 146ff. und In Hiezechielem 2, 5, 1 2 - 1 3 (CChr 75, p. 60) zu CA 2, 4 5 - 4 7 . In D e viris illustribus c. 13 berichtet der Kirchenvater von Josephus unter anderem: Septem libros Iudaicae captivitaäs imperatoribus patrifilioque obtulit, qui et bibliothecae publicae traditi sunt, et ob ingenii gloriam statuam quoque Romae meruit. Scripsit autem et... duos (sc. libros) dp%ai6TT|TO(; adversus Appionem grammaticum Alexandrinum . Der Werktitel Contra Apionem erscheint Epist. 70, ad M a g n u m c. 3 (CSEL 54, 704) und Adv. Iovinian. 2, 14 (Migne, PL 23, 303). Er ist ein mutmaßender, tentativer Werktitel wie die anderen uns bereits bekann­ ten Formen. Die Version Contra Apionem bestätigt auf ihre Weise, daß d e m Kirchenvater weder Ilpöc; xoix; "E7Ckr\va<; noch Ilepi xnq tfiv 'IODSocicov dpxaioxTixoq als rezipierter, allgemein eingeführter Titel geläu­ fig w a r . 46

47

11. Prokopios von Gaza (+ u m 530), der christliche Sophist und Bibelexeget, rekurriert oft auf Josephus, so Migne PG 87, 4 8 4 auf CA 1, 9 1 . 103. W e g e n der Eigenart der Quellenverwertung bringt das freilich keinen Nutzen für die Kritik des Josephustextes . 12. U m 5 5 0 verfaßte Kosmas Indikopleustes als M ö n c h im Sinaikloster (oder in Alexandreia) eine Xpiaxiavncf] Tojcoypacpia, in der er unter anderem kenntnisreiche Beschreibungen der Länder bietet, die er vor seinem Klosterleben, als ägyptischer Kaufmann, bereist hatte . Sein Zitat von CA 2, 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 . 1 7 2 (Winstedt, p. 3 2 8 - 3 2 9 ) ist nicht durch­ gehend wörtlich, dementsprechend textkritisch von geringem Nutzen. CA 2, 155 hat er als einziger Zeuge dpiaxaiq (statt äopiaxaiq), CA 2, 172 läßt er f\ \ir\ aus und bietet töv VOJIOV (statt xcov vojicov). In keinem dieser drei Fälle bezeugt er den genuinen Text (vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 101-102). 48

49

13. Georgios Monachos zieht in seiner bis zum den, 867 vollendeten Weltchronik oft Josephus (Chronikon, ed. C. de Boor, Bd. I., Stuttgart 1978 p. 265); ferner CA 1, 2 0 1 - 2 0 4 (de Boor I, pp.

4 6

Jahre 842 reichen­ heran, so CA 1, 41 [Reprint von 1904], 32-33). Zusammen

H i e r o n y m u s u n d G e n n a d i u s , D e viris inlustribus, e d . A . Bernoulli, F r e i b u r g 1 8 9 5 , p . 16. Z u H i e r o n y m u s vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 . Vgl. Schreckenberg 1977, 17-22. T e x t a u s g a b e n : M i g n e P G 8 8 , 5 1 - 4 7 0 ; O . W i n s t e d t , C a m b r i d g e 1909; S o u r c e s C h r é t i e n n e s , B ä n d e 1 4 1 . 159. 197. 4 7

4 8

4 9

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

71

mit den diesbezüglichen Exzerpten des Eusebius (vgl. Schreckenberg 1972, 83f.) ist er für die Kritik des Josephustextes nützlich, weil er trotz der z.T. freien Paraphrase vieles wörtlich oder geringfügig modi­ fiziert übernimmt (siehe Schreckenberg 1972, 118—120). 14. Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos: (byzantinischer Kaiser 9 1 2 - 9 5 9 ) förderte in besonderem Maße die Wissenschaften. A u f sein Geheiß entstand unter anderem eine historische Exzerptensammlung in 5 3 Büchern, von denen 4 erhalten sind. Innerhalb der Exempla rcepi dpeTfjq Kai Kaidaq (de virtutibus et vitiis) ist der griechische Text von CA 2, 1 5 6 - 1 7 4 bezeugt (Büttner-Wobst 1906, p p . 112-115). Niese hatte diese Excerpta Peiresciana (erhalten in d e m sogenannten Codex Peirescianus, benannt nach N . C. Fabri de Peiresc [ 1 5 8 0 1637], einem französischen Bibliophilen) noch nicht für seine Edition von Contra Apionem (Berlin 1889) genutzt, j e d o c h nachträglich auf sein Versäumnis hingewiesen . Im 10. Jahrhundert entstanden, sind diese Exzerpte also unabhängig v o n d e m erst i m 11. Jahrhundert geschriebenen Laurentianus 6 9 , 2 2 . Sie sind aber verwandt mit der griechischen Vorlage der von Cassiodor i m 6. Jahrhundert veranlaßten lateinischen Übersetzung. Ihr Eigenwert wird nicht zuletzt dar­ aus deudich, daß sie da und dort als einzige Lesarten bezeugen, die vielleicht genuin sind, z u m Beispiel CA 2, 157 7toÄ,\>\jKX|i|Liov (statt noXkr\v \|/djLi|xov); CA 2, 162 hat der Exzerptor vermutlich genuines oi 50

8' Eiq t ö v 'A7C6AACO Kai TÖ Aetapucöv auxoix; ixavxeiov dvecpepov; CA 2, 168

liest der Kodex des Exzerptors jiiKpoi) (statt Kai niKpou) gegen alle sonstigen Textzeugen; CA 2, 173 bietet er mit ejijietaiav (statt ercipiXeiav) die wahrscheinlich richtige Lesart. D a ß Contra Apionem nicht breiter und besser überliefert ist, kann nicht durch mangelndes Interesse der Kirchenväterzeit an diesem Text verursacht sein, das, wie wir sahen, durchaus nicht gering war. Be­ stimmend dafür war vielleicht, daß beim Umschreiben der Rollen in Kodizes, also im 3 . / 4 . Jahrhundert, diese letzte, nur 2 Bücher (d.h. 2 Rollen) umfassende Schrift des Josephus bei der mit diesem U m ­ schreiben verbundenen Redaktion etwas an den R a n d geriet; denn durch die Redaktion entstanden vier beziehungsweise sechs (letz­ teres entsprechend der Pentadeneinteilung der 2 0 Bücher Antiquitates Iudaicae) Überlieferungsblöcke: I = Bellum Iudaicum; IIa = Antiquitates Iudaicae 1-5; IIb = Antiquitates Iudaicae 6 - 1 0 ; l i l a = Antiquitates Iudaicae

5 0

B a n d I V , Berlin 1 8 9 0 , p p . V I I I - X ; vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 1 2 4 - 1 2 7 sowie N o d e t 1987, 3 4 1 .

72

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

11-15; I l l b = Antiquitates Iudaicae 1 6 - 2 0 einschließlich der Vita als Anhang; I V = Contra Apionem . V o n diesen Traditionseinheiten war nun die letzte, am spätesten entstandene, zufallig die kleinste, ähnlich durch ihre Randstellung gefährdet wie - mutatis mutandis - die Vita, die als einziges der 30 Bücher des Josephus in der Spätantike nicht ins Lateinische über­ setzt wurde. Die Dürftigkeit der Überlieferung der Schrift gegen Apion ist also wohl eher durch Zufall zustandegekommen als aus Ableh­ nung der Christen gegen die in dieser Schrift erfolgende effektive projüdische Apologetik, wie Feldman vermutet (a.O., S. 193). D a das Christentum sich selbst als legitimen Nachfolger des vermeintlich enterbten Judentums verstand, konnte es - mit geringfügigen Modifi­ kationen - die projüdische Argumentation bequem zur prochristlichen antiheidnischen Apologetik umfunktionieren. Auch sonst zeigte ja das Christentum, w o es um den eigenen Nutzen ging, keine Berührungs­ angst, sich geeignetes Gedankengut des jüdischen Historikers anzu­ eignen und ihn zu einer Art Kirchenvater honoris causa zu machen. 51

52

V. Die gelehrte Tradition des lateinischen und griechischen Textes von Contra Apionem N o c h vor d e m Erscheinen der Editio princeps des griechischen Josephustextes, also vor 1544, entstanden sehr zahlreiche unkritische Abdrucke von Handschriften der spätantiken lateinischen Josephusübersetzungen . Die Schrift gegen Apion erschien innerhalb dieser lateinischen Gesamtausgaben teils unter dem Titel De antiquitate Iudaeo53

5 1

Siehe z u d e n 4 beziehungsweise 6 Überlieferungsblöcken S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1972, 11. V g l . K . T r e u b e i H a r l f i n g e r 1980, 6 1 5 : „ W i e viele T e x t e lasen n o c h die B y z a n ­ tiner, die w i r n i c h t m e h r h a b e n ! W i e vieles w a r s c h o n d a m a l s verloren! W i e m a n c h e s ist u n s a b e r a u c h n u r d u r c h d a s N a d e l ö h r e i n e r e i n z i g e n H a n d s c h r i f t z u g e k o m m e n ( d e n k e n w i r a n L a k t a n z , A r n o b i u s , C l e m e n s A l e x a n d r i n u s ) ; vgl. F e l d m a n 1988, 192, A n m . 1 1 : " p r e s e r v a t i o n of a n c i e n t w o r k s is often d u e to c h a n c e . T h u s , for m o s t of C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a t h e r e is o n l y o n e m e d i e v a l m a n u s c r i p t a n d o n l y o n e c o p y of it p r i o r to t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y ; a n d l a r g e p o r t i o n s of his w o r k s a r e totally lost. F o r m o s t of I r e n a e u s t h e r e a r e only t w o m e d i e v a l m a n u s c r i p t s of the L a t i n translation a n d n o n e of t h e o r i g i n a l G r e e k " . Z u l e t z t e r e n siehe S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1972, 5 6 - 6 1 ; die A b d r u c k e z w i s c h e n 1470 u n d 1544 s i n d v e r z e i c h n e t bei S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 6 8 , 1-10; d e r s . 1979, 1 6 3 - 1 6 7 ; vgl. C . B o y s e n 1 8 9 8 , p p . X - X L E t w a 2 3 0 H a n d s c h r i f t e n sind b e k a n n t , d o c h dürfte i h r e Z a h l b e i e n t s p r e c h e n d e r S u c h e n o c h weit g r ö ß e r w e r d e n - Z e i c h e n d e r Beliebtheit des J o s e p h u s bei d e n Christen des Mittelalters. 5 2

5 3

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

73

rum contra Appionem (grammaticum) teils als De antiqua Iudaeorum origine. Die Editio Basilea von 1524 ist aus heutiger Sicht die beste dieser älteren Ausgaben, weil hier der Text noch nicht nach griechischen Handschriften „verbessert" wurde. Solange die von Boysen (1898) begonnene und von Blatt (1958) weitergeführte kritische Ausgabe des lateinischen Josephus nicht vollendet ist - was vorerst nicht erwartet werden kann - , behält die Editio Basilea einen gewissen Wert für die Kritik des Textes von Bell 1-7 und Ant. 6 - 2 0 . Im Jahre 1544 erschien in Basel, ebenfalls bei Froben, die Editio princeps des grie­ chischen Josephustextes . B. Nieses Editio maior critica des griechischen Textes (7 Bde., Berlin 1885-95; eine billigere aber textlich vielfach verbesserte Ausgabe ohne kritischen Apparat erschien in 6 Bänden Berlin 1888-95) setzte ganz neue Maßstäbe, insofern er nach bestem damaligen Wissensstand Recensio, Examinatio und Emendatio besorgte, nachdem bis dahin nur mehr oder weniger verbesserte Abdrucke der Editio princeps er­ schienen waren. Aber seit 1885 sind mehr als hundert Jahre vergangen. Nicht nur ist die Kenntnis der Josephusüberlieferung heute weit besser, es wurden auch zu Recht gravierende Fehlbewertungen der Text­ zeugengruppen bei Niese gerügt, und dies nicht zuletzt im Bereich Contra Apionem. Indes haben die Bemühungen u m den griechischen Josephustext noch nicht zu einer grundlegenden Änderung der Si­ tuation gefuhrt; denn alle folgenden Editionen sind mehr oder weniger Editiones minores auf der Grundlage von Nieses Leistung. S. A. Naber verbessert in seiner Ausgabe (6 Bde., Leipzig 1888-96) zwar manche Einseitigkeiten Nieses, ist aber im Grunde nur ein mit Nieses Mate­ rialien verbesserter Bekker, d.h. der Edition von I. Bekker (6 Bde., Leipzig 1855-56) mit vielen neuen Einseitigkeiten, so der durchge­ henden Herstellung attischer Sprachformen auch gegen den Über­ lieferungsbefund . Eklektisch gegenüber Niese und Naber verhält sich Josephus with an 54

55

56

5 4

D i e Baseler A u s g a b e v o n 1524 ist w e g e n ihres f o r t d a u e r n d e n W e r t e s n a c h g e ­ d r u c k t , H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1981 (vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 6 8 , 7). S i e h e o b e n I V B u n d S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1968, lOf. (vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 9 , 161); zu d e n folgenden G e s a m t a u s g a b e n d e s g r i e c h i s c h e n T e x t e s in d e n J a h r e n 1 6 1 1 , 1634, 1635, 1 6 9 1 , 1700, 1 7 2 6 , 1 7 8 2 - 8 5 , 1786, 1 8 2 6 - 2 7 , 1 8 4 5 - 4 7 , 1 8 5 0 , 1 8 5 5 - 5 6 siehe S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1979, 16lf. u n d S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1968 c h r o n o l o g i s c h z u d e n e n t ­ s p r e c h e n d e n J a h r e n . E r w ä h n e n s w e r t ist n o c h die S e p a r a t a u s g a b e : D e s Mavius J o s e p h u s Schrift g e g e n A p i o n . T e x t u n d E r k l ä r u n g , a u s d e m N a c h l a ß v o n J . G . M ü l l e r , h g . d u r c h C . J . R i g g e n b a c h u n d C . v o n O r e l l i , Basel 1877. S i e h e d a z u S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 6 8 , 115 u n d 1979, 162. 5 5

5 6

74

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray (and others), 9. Bde., The Loeb Classical Library. London-Cambridge, Mass. 1926-65 (vol. I: The Life. Contra Apionem). Die Vorzüge und Mängel dieser Ausgabe hier aufzuzählen, würde zu weit fuhren. Für den Bereich Contra Apionem m u ß aber auf jeden Fall moniert werden, daß die wertvollen Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis (zu CA 2, 156-174) nicht berücksichtigt sind Thackeray kannte sie wohl nicht einmal - und Nieses arge Fehlbewertung des für Contra Apionem wichtigsten Textzeugen Eusebius weder erkannt noch revidiert wurde . Der Vorwurf der Nichtbenutzung der Excerpta trifft auch Flavius Josephe, Contre Apion. Texte établi et annoté par Th. Reinach, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1930, ebenso der Makel, Nieses unrichtige Bewertung des Textzeugen Eusebius unkritisch übernommen zu haben. Gleiches gilt für Phlabiou Iosêpou kat Apiönos. Archaion keimenon. Eisagöge, metaphrasis, semeiosis, hg. von Kostas I. Phrilingos, Athen: Zacharopoulos, 1939. - Damit reißt die editorische Texttradition von Contra Apionem ab. Textliche Fortschritte bringen, soweit zu sehen ist, auch nicht neuere Übersetzungen und Kommentare: 1. Lucio Troiani, C o m m e n t o storico al „Contro Apione" di Giuseppe. Introduzione, commento storico, traduzione e indici, Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori, 1977 . 2. Gohei Hata, Flavius Josephus: Contra Apionem, translated from Greek (into Jap.), Tokyo: Yamamoto Shoten, 1977. 3. Istvan H a h n , Josephus Flavius, Apiôn eilen, avagy a zsidô nep ösi voltârôl (Prométheusz, 5), Budapest: Helikon, 1984. 4. D o s Santos Rubens, Defesa dos Iudeus contra Apion e outros caluniadores. Introd., trad. & notas (Publ. do Depart, de Letras clâsicas da Fac. de Letras da Univ. federal de Minas Gérais VI), Belo Horizonte 1986. 5. J a n Radozycki, Josephus Flavius. Przeciw Apionowi; Autobiografiajôsef Flawiusz; z oryginalu greckiego przelozyl wstepem i objasnieniami opatrzyl, Poznan: Ksieg. Sw. Wojciecha, 1986. 6. M. V. Spottorno Diaz-Caro et J. R. Busto Saiz, Flavio Josefo, Autobiografia. Sobre la antigüedad de los judios. Traducciôn, introduccion y notas (Libros de Bolsillo, 1273), Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1987. W e n n es richtig ist, daß Übersetzungen und Kommentare als wichtigste Voraussetzung eine gute Textausgabe benötigen, dann sollte 57

}

58

5 7

Z u r S a c h e vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1977, 1 5 8 - 1 6 2 .

5 8

Z u r K r i t i k a n T r o i a n i vgl. a u c h Pilhofer 1 9 9 0 , 194.

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

75

zunächst De Iudaeorum vetustate sive Contra Apionem libri II (Berlin 1889, erschienen als Band V von Nieses Gesamtausgabe 1885-95) durch eine neue Ausgabe abgelöst werden.

VI. Das Problem des genuinen Werktitels der Schrift gegen Apion Die wichtige Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Titel haben wir gleich zu Beginn gestellt und vorläufig vermutet, daß von den drei überlie­ ferten Versionen 1. xoix; "EXto\\aq

npög

2. ÜEpl Tfjq TCOV 'IODÖCUCOV ap%ou6Tr|To<;

3. Contra Apionem wohl keine genuin ist; denn selbst die überwiegend akzeptierte zwei­ te Form hat nur scheinbar in CA 1, 3 und CA 2, 1 (vgl. CA 1, 217) eine Stütze, weil das hohe Alter des jüdischen Volkes nur ein Teil­ thema des ganzen Werkes ist, ebenso wie Contra Apionem. Ja, alle drei Titel (einschließlich der Mischform De Iudaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem) machen den Eindruck von Verlegenheitslösungen, in gewis­ ser Weise vergleichbar mit einem häufigen Problem der handschrift­ lichen Überlieferung: mehrere überlieferte alternative Lesarten zu einem Wort lassen erkennen, daß dort der Text von den Tradenten als gestört empfunden wurde beziehungsweise tatsächlich gestört ist. Lassen wir die drei Titel zunächst einmal nebeneinander stehen und fragen, wie es überhaupt mit den Werktiteln in der Antike steht und im besonderen, wie die Situation bei den opera Josephi ist. Werktitel im heutigen Sinne waren in der Antike nicht üblich, und die traditionellen Bezeichnungen von Literaturwerken antiker Auto­ ren sind entweder sekundär oder bestenfalls zurückzuführen auf Angaben zum Verfasser und Inhalt am Ende einer Buchrolle, später dann auch am Anfang einer Buchrolle oder eines K o d e x . Diese Angaben müssen als Titel in unserem Sinne gelten. Erst nachdem Kodizes die Buchrollen ablösten, also im Laufe der Spätantike, ent­ stand allmählich die heute geläufige Form des Anfangstitels . So müssen wir auch bei Josephus die von ihm intendierten „Werktitel" nach Möglichkeit erschließen aus seinen Selbstzitaten beziehungs­ weise einschlägigen Bemerkungen zu Anfang oder Ende eines seiner Bücher. Das geht, wie bei anderen Autoren, so auch bei dem jüdischen 59

5 9

Z u dieser E n t w i c k l u n g vgl. e t w a S c h u b a r t 1 9 0 7 , 8 7 . 125f.

76

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

Historiker nicht ohne einen gewissen Ermessensspielraum, j a nicht ganz ohne Willkür ab. Relativ klar scheint zunächst noch der Sachverhalt für das Bellum Iudaicum: louöaiKoq

n6Xe\L0<; (Ant.

Ttepi xox) lovSoÄKov noXe^oq

1, 203; 18, 11; Vita 413)

noXi\iov

(Ant. 1, 6; 18,

(Ant. 20, 258; Vita 27.412)

259)

oi 'Iovöaücoi K6XE\LOI (Ant. 13, 72) r\ 'Io\)5aiicn 7tpay|LiaTeia (Ant. 13, 173) xd 'IouSoÜKa (Ant. 13, 298 und als Varia lectio Ant. 13, 72) M a n hat sich hier mit einer gewissen Berechtigung auf Bellum Iudaicum beziehungsweise De hello Iudaico geeinigt, aber wie labil selbst hier die Konvention ist, zeigt sich daran, daß manche Gelehrte noch - zu Unrecht - auf "AAxooiq (beziehungsweise Ilepi a^coaecoq) als genuinem Titel beharren . Aber schon Antiquitates Iudaicae ist durchaus fragwürdig, spricht doch Josephus v o n diesem seinem zweiten Werk ähnlich unterschied­ lich als 60

xd xfjq dpxaioA,oy{a<; (Ant. 20, 259)

fi dpxaiotoyia (Ant. 20, 267; CA 1, 54) j \ xfjq dpxottoXoyiaq dvaypacpri (Vita 430) fi Ttepl xfiv dpxcaoA,oyiocv cruyypacpri (CA 1, 1)

xd Tcepl rnv dp%(xiota)y{av i>n euov yeypauueva (CA 1, 2) cd dp%aioÄ,oy{ca (CA 2, 136) x drcepldpxcaoA,oy{a<; um ypacpevxa (CA 2, 287) Korrekter wäre also etwa De antiquitate, weil hier die noch für sein erstes Werk deutliche Außensicht auf das Jüdische zugunsten einer innerjüdischen Sehweise aufgegeben ist. Der traditionelle Titel Icocrr|rco'u ß(o<; (Vita, Autobiographie) ist nicht genuin. Er hat nur eine schwache Stütze in Vita 4 1 3 . 430. D a der Autor in Contra Apionem nicht mehr auf dieses Werk zu sprechen kommt, können nur aus der Vita selbst entsprechende Schlüsse gezo­ gen werden. Hier bietet sich vielleicht an (lcoaf|7ro'ü) yevoq (lateinisch formuliert: De genere suo), das meint (vornehme) Abstammung, Her­ kunft; denn Josephus thematisiert zu Beginn der Schrift in voller Breite sein yevo<; (lat. genus, gern, familid), und zwar fünfmal, nämlich Ant. 20, 266 (d.h. in der vorgezogenen, verklammernden Einleitung der Vita ,

6 0

Z u m Beispiel T h a c k e r a y , vol. I I (1927), p p . V I I - I X ; F . Blatt 1 9 5 8 , 10; M i c h e l B a u e r n f e i n d I (1959) S. X I X ; vgl. d a g e g e n S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 2 , 177f.

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

11

als Anhang der Antiquitates Iudaicae) und in Vita 1-6 (vgl. auch gegen Ende der Vita, § 4 1 4 - 4 1 5 . 426ff. den Bericht über seine Ehen und seine Kinder). Nach antikem Verständnis sagen Stammbaum, Familiengeschichte und Geburtsort eines Menschen einiges aus über sein Wesen, seinen Rang und seine Glaubwürdigkeit (vgl. z.B. CA 1, 178. 316 sowie J. H. Neyrey, in: Journal for the Study of Judaism 25, 1994, 177-206), und so stellt sich der jüdische Historiker zu Beginn seines ersten großen Werkes angemessen vor: 'IcoGriicoq MaxOioi) naiq, yevei 'Eßpaioq, e£ 'IepoGoAujicov iepetx; (Bell. 1, 3). Ähnlichen Zweck hat der Stammbaum des Jesus von Nazaret zu Beginn des Matthäusevangeliums, und die beiden bedeutendsten griechischen Historiker stellen sich gleich zu Beginn ihrer Werke vor als Hp68oTO<; 'AAiKocpvacGEoq und -oi)KD8{8r|<; A6r|vaio<;. Wir kommen nun zum Werktitel der Schrift gegen Apion zurück. Es ist hier wiederholt die Rede von der äp%ai6xy\q des jüdischen Volkes (CA 1, 3. 160. 217; 2, 1). D o c h ist dies nur ein auf das erste der beiden Bücher begrenztes Teilthema. Ähnlich ist nur ein Teil des zweiten Buches, genauer 2, 1-144, „gegen Apion" gerichtet, der Titel also geradezu „irreführend" . Als übergeordnetes Leitthema bietet sich dagegen an xö yevoq fifiöv (TCÖV 'Io\)8a{cov) (CA 1, 1 und 2, 296; vgl. die formelhafte Wiederkehr von yevoq innerhalb der Schrift: CA 1, 2. 32. 59. 71. 106. 130. 160. 219. 278; 2, 288; zum Begriff yevoq siehe die gute Darstellung von Cohen 1994) beziehungsweise dessen Verteidigung und die Absicht, den hohen R a n g des jüdischen Volkes und seiner altehrwürdigen Religion ins rechte Licht zu setzen. Werktitel im Sinne des Autors könnte also vielleicht sein Ilepi xov TCÖV 'IouSoctcov yevovq (lat. De gente nostra oder De gente Iudaica?). N a c h der Darstellung des l(oci\KOX> yevoq, seiner eigenen Herkunft (einschließlich Werdegang, Schicksale, Familienverhältnisse; zu dieser Erweiterung des Begriffs yevcx; siehe Ant. 20, 266!), wäre es eine konsequente Abrundung seiner opera, abschließend über die Herkunft des Judenvolkes zu handeln. ?

61

Zusammenfassung Nach dem gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand lassen sich folgende Aussagen machen: 61

S o stellt Pilhofer 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 3 , v o l l k o m m e n z u R e c h t fest.

78

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

1. Qualitativ wichtigster Textzeuge sind die sehr zahlreichen Ex­ zerpte des Eusebius (und danach in weitem Abstand andere Testi­ monien der Kirchenväterzeit). Ihnen folgen rangmäßig die von Kaiser Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos in Auftrag gegebenen Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis und - etwa gleichwertig - die von Cassiodorus veranlaßte lateinische Übersetzung. An letzter Stelle steht der Laurentianus gr. 69, 22 (mit seinen verschiedenen Abkömmlingen). D o c h ist damit nur eine ungefähre Orientierung gegeben. Der vielfach korrupte Zustand dieser wenigen Überlieferungsträger erlaubt es nicht, einen Zeugen zu favorisieren; denn die Wahrscheinlichkeit, daß der einzelne Zeuge sich nicht so verhält, wie es seine Position in der Rangfolge erwarten läßt, ist ähnlich groß wie die, daß er sich ihr entsprechend verhält. Unter diesen Umständen kommt man dem genuinen Text vielleicht am nächsten durch ein eklektisches Verfahren, bei dem nach den strengen Regeln der inneren Kritik jede Lesart geprüft wird, ob sie sachlich und sprachlich ursprünglicher Text sein kann. Hier hilft jetzt die von Rengstorf herausgegebene Complete Concordance (1973— 1983). 2. Bei möglicherweise oder offensichtlich korruptem Text ist eine behutsame Konjekturalkritik unerläßlich; ja, sie kann anregend wir­ ken, eine bereits vorliegende Vermutung zu modifizieren und durch eine bessere zu ersetzen . J e mehr die Überlieferung gestört ist und Contra Apionem ist der am schlechtesten erhaltene Text des Josephus - desto mehr bedarf es der Konjekturalkritik. Als Konjektur (zu verzeichnen im kritischen Apparat einer möglichen neuen Textausgabe) wäre vielleicht auch Shutt's Versuch (1987) einer Rückübersetzung der nur lateinisch erhaltenen Passage CA 2, 5 1 - 1 1 1 erwägenswert; dagegen spricht aber, daß sein Versuch auf der alten lateinischen Übersetzung als Basis ruht, auf einem für eine solche Last zu schwa­ chen Fundament also, und - schlimmer - , daß Unkundige versucht sein könnten, dieses Elaborat als genuinen Josephustext mißzuverstehen. Konjekturen im Bereich CA 2, 5 1 - 1 1 1 sind nur im Einzelfall möglich, methodisch abgesichert durch eine bessere Kenntnis der Überlieferungsgeschichte als sie Shutt besaß. 3. Ein über Niese hinausführender beträchtlicher Kenntniszuwachs 62

6 2

E i n Beispiel: Bell. 6, 2 5 7 (tixicoiiievcov) ist d e r T e x t gestört. D e s t i n o n konjizierte d i a g n o s t i s c h mio^evcov (d.h. die v o m F e u e r ergriffenen S o l d a t e n glichen l e b e n d e n Fackeln); W e i t e r d e n k e n n a c h d i e s e m A n s t o ß führt z u d e m g e n u i n e n finnevcov (von ajtxco).

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

79

ist zu registrieren: Vollständige Ermittlung der Fontes und Testimonien, die beide jetzt zumeist in textkritisch gut nutzbaren neueren Editionen vorliegen (einerseits z.B. Jacoby's FOrHist, Stern; andererseits etwa die vorzüglichen Eusebius-Ausgaben in der Reihe „Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte"). Grundlegenden Fortschritt über Niese hinaus bringen besonders die CSEL-Ausgabe der in der Werkstatt Cassiodors entstandenen lateinischen Übersetzung (Boysen 1898) und die Ausgabe der Excerpta de virtutibus et vitiis durch Büttner-Wobst (1906). Schließlich kann jetzt Nieses schlimme Fehlbewertung der Eubebius-Überlieferung in ihrer Auswirkung auf den Josephustext rückgängig gemacht werden, eine Fehlbewertung, die ähnliche Ausmaße hat wie die zu Ant. 1-10, w o Niese den Wert des Parisinus gr. 1421 und des Bodleianus 186 weit überschätzte . 63

Literaturverzeichnis Aziza, C : T e r t u l l i e n et le j u d a ï s m e , P a r i s 1977 Bilde, P.: Flavius J o s e p h u s b e t w e e n J e r u s a l e m a n d R o m e , Sheffield 1 9 8 8 Blanck, H . : D a s B u c h in d e r A n t i k e , M ü n c h e n 1992 Blatt, E. (ed.): T h e L a t i n J o s e p h u s . I. I n t r o d u c t i o n a n d T e x t . T h e A n t i q u i t i e s : B o o k I - V , A a r h u s 1958 B o e t t g e r , G.: T o p o g r a p h i s c h - h i s t o r i s c h e s L e x i k o n z u d e n S c h r i f t e n d e s F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s , Leipzig 1879 ( R e p r i n t : A m s t e r d a m 1966) Boysen, C . (ed.): Flavii J o s e p h i o p e r a e x v e r s i o n e l a t i n a a n t i q u a , c o m m e n t a r i o critico instruxit p r o l e g o m e n a i n d i c e s q u e a d d i d i t . P a r s V I . D e I u d a e o r u m v e t u s t a t e sive c o n t r a A p i o n e m (= C S E L 37), W i e n 1898 B ü t t n e r - W o b s t , T h . (ed.): E x c e r p t a d e v i r t u t i b u s et vitiis. P a r s I. (= E x c e r p t a historica iussu i m p . C o n s t a n t i n i P o r p h y r o g e n i t i confecta, e d i d e r u n t U . P h . Boissevain [et alii]. V o l . II), Berlin 1906 C a r r a s , G . P.: D e p e n d e n c e o r C o m m o n T r a d i t i o n in P h i l o „ H y p o t h e t i c a " V I I I 6 . 1 0 7.20 a n d J o s e p h u s Contra Apionem 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 , S t u d i a P h i l o n i c a A n n u a l 5, 1 9 9 3 , 24-47 C o h e n , S . J . D . : 'IoDÔaîoç TÖ yevoç a n d R e l a t e d E x p r e s s i o n s in J o s e p h u s , in: J o s e p h u s a n d t h e H i s t o r y of t h e G r e c o - R o m a n P e r i o d . Essays i m M e m o r y of M o r t o n S m i t h , ed. b y F. P a r e n t e a n d J . Sievers, L e i d e n 1994, 2 3 - 3 8 : H i s t o r y a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y in t h e Against Apion of J o s e p h u s , in: Essays in J e w i s h H i s t o r i o g r a p h y (= H i s t o r y a n d T h e o r y , S t u d i a in t h e P h i l o s o p h y of H i s t o r y . Beiheft 27), M i d d l e t o w n 1 9 8 8 , 1-11 D e b r u n n e r A.: G e s c h i c h t e d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n S p r a c h e . I I . G r u n d f r a g e n u n d G r u n d züge des n a c h k l a s s i s c h e n G r i e c h i s c h , Berlin 1954 (1969 ) Diels, H . - K r a n z , W . (Hgg.): D i e F r a g m e n t e d e r V o r s o k r a t i k e r , 3 B d e . , Berlin 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 1 (I 1 9 6 1 ; I I - I I I 1960) 2

6 3

S i e h e die K r i t i k b e i S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 7 7 , 8 2 f ; ä h n l i c h a u c h N o d e t (I, p . X X ) . V g l . a u c h S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1972, 60f. u n d 1 9 7 7 , 1 5 7 - 1 6 9 .

1990

80

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

Dornseiff, F.: E c h t h e i t s f r a g e n a n t i k - g r i e c h i s c h e r L i t e r a t u r . R e t t u n g e n des T h e o g n i s , P h o k y l i d e s , H e k a t a i o s , C h o i r i l o s , Berlin 1939 D ö r r i e , H . - B a k e s , M . (Hgg.): D e r P i a t o n i s m u s in d e r A n t i k e . B a u s t e i n e 3 6 - 7 2 , h g . v o n M . Baltes, S t u t t g a r t 1990 Eckstein, A . M . : J o s e p h u s a n d Polybius: A R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , Classical A n t i q u i t y 9, 1990, 1 7 5 - 2 0 8 F e l d m a n , L. H . : J e w a n d G e n t i l e in t h e A n c i e n t W o r l d . A t t i t u d e s a n d I n t e r a c t i o n s from A l e x a n d e r to J u s t i n i a n , P r i n c e t o n , N . J . , 1993 : J o s e p h u s a n d M o d e r n S c h o l a r s h i p ( 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 8 0 ) , Berlin 1984 : O r i g e n ' s „ C o n t r a C e l s u m " a n d J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem: T h e Issue of J e w i s h O r i g i n s , Vigiliae C h r i s t i a n a e 4 4 , 1990, 1 0 5 - 1 3 5 : P r o J e w i s h I n t i m a t i o n s in Anti-Jewish R e m a r k s C i t e d in J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem, J e w i s h Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w 7 8 , 1989, 1 8 7 - 2 5 1 FGrHist: siehe J a c o b y G a u g e r , J . - D . : Zitate in d e r j ü d i s c h e n Apologetik u n d die Authentizität der H e k a t a i o s - P a s s a g e n b e i Flavius J o s e p h u s u n d i m Ps.-Aristeas-Brief, J o u r n a l for t h e S t u d y of J u d a i s m 13, 1982, 6 - 4 6 / G e r b e r , C h r . : D i e Heiligen Schriften des J u d e n t u m s n a c h Flavius J o s e p h u s , in: Schrift­ auslegung im antiken J u d e n t u m u n d im Christentum, hg. von M . Hengel u n d H . L o h r , T ü b i n g e n 1994, 9 1 - 1 1 3 G o o d m a n , M . : J o s e p h u s as R o m a n C i t i z e n , in: J o s e p h u s a n d t h e H i s t o r y of t h e G r e c o - R o m a n P e r i o d . Essays in M e m o r y of M o r t o n S m i t h , ed. b y F. P a r e n t e a n d J . Sievers, L e i d e n 1994, 3 2 9 - 3 3 8 G r o s s , C . D . : A G r a m m a r of J o s e p h u s ' „ V i t a " , Diss. D u k e U n i v e r s i t y 1988 Harlfinger, D . (Hg.): G r i e c h i s c h e K o d i k o l o g i e u n d T e x t ü b e r l i e f e r u n g , D a r m s t a d t 1980 H a t a , G . : I m a g i n i n g S o m e D a r k P e r i o d s in J o s e p h u s ' Life, in: J o s e p h u s a n d t h e H i s t o r y of t h e G r e c o - R o m a n P e r i o d . Essays in M e m o r y of M o r t o n S m i t h , ed. b y F . P a r e n t e a n d J . Sievers, L e i d e n 1994, 3 0 9 - 3 2 8 H o l l a d a y , C . R.: F r a g m e n t s from t h e Hellenistic J e w i s h A u t h o r s . V o l u m e I: Historians, Chico, California, 1983 H ö l s c h e r , G.: J o s e p h u s , R e a l e n c y c l o p ä d i e d e r classischen Altertumswiss. I X (1916) 1934-2000 H o r a n , R.: A c c u s a t i o n s A g a i n s t t h e J e w s a n d J o s e p h u s ' D e f e n c e : A S t u d y of t h e Contra Apionem, Diss. D u b l i n (Trinity College) 1991 H o r s t , P . W . v a n d e r : C h a i r e m o n . E g y p t i a n Priest a n d Stoic P h i l o s o p h e r . T h e F r a g ­ m e n t s collected a n d t r a n s l a t e d w i t h E x p l a n a t o r y N o t e s , L e i d e n 1987 H u n g e r , H . (u.a.): D i e T e x t ü b e r l i e f e r u n g d e r antiken Literatur u n d d e r Bibel, M ü n c h e n 1988 J a c o b y , F.: D i e F r a g m e n t e d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n H i s t o r i k e r (FGrHist), L e i d e n 1968ff. K o p i d a k i s , M . Z . : I o s e p o s h o m e r i z o n , H e l l e n i k a 3 7 , 1986, 3 - 2 5 K r i e g e r , K . - S t : G e s c h i c h t s s c h r e i b u n g als A p o l o g e t i k b e i Flavius J o s e p h u s , T ü b i n g e n 1994 L a n g e , N . R . M . : O r i g e n a n d t h e J e w s , C a m b r i d g e 1976 M i c h e l , O . - B a u e r n f e i n d , O . (Hgg.): Flavius I o s e p h u s . D e Bello I u d a i c o . D e r j ü d i ­ sche Krieg, 3 Bde., B a d H o m b u r g 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 6 9 M i z u g a k i , W . : O r i g e n a n d J o s e p h u s , in: J o s e p h u s , J u d a i s m , a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y , ed. L. H . F e l d m a n a n d G . H a t a , D e t r o i t 1 9 8 7 , 3 2 5 - 3 3 7 M ö l l e r , C h r . - S c h m i t t , G.: P a l ä s t i n a . S i e d l u n g e n n a c h Flavius J o s e p h u s ( T ü b i n g e r Atlas des V o r d e r e n O r i e n t s ) , W i e s b a d e n 1980 : S i e d l u n g e n P a l ä s t i n a s n a c h Flavius J o s e p h u s , W i e s b a d e n 1976 M r a s , K . : E i n V o r w o r t z u r n e u e n E u s e b i u s a u s g a b e , R h e i n i s c h e s M u s e u m 9 2 , 1944, 217-236 N a b e r , S. A . (Hg.): Flavii I o s e p h i o p e r a o m n i a , 6 B d e . , L e i p z i g 1 8 8 8 - 1 8 9 6 N i e s e , B . : Flavii I o s e p h i o p e r a r e c o g n o v i t B . N i e s e , 6 B d e . , Berlin 1 8 8 8 - 1 8 9 5 (eine

TEXT, ÜBERLIEFERUNG

UND TEXTKRITIK VON CONTRA APIONEM

81

vielfach v e r b e s s e r t e editio m i n o r o h n e kritischen A p p a r a t u n d o h n e R e g i s t e r band) : I o s e p h i o p e r a edidit e t a p p a r a t u critico instruxit B . N i e s e , 7. B d e . , Berlin 1 8 8 5 - 1 8 9 5 (Bd. V I g e m e i n s a m m i t J . v o n D e s t i n o n ) N o d e t , E.: Flavius J o s e p h e . L e s A n t i q u i t é s j u i v e s . V o l u m e I: Livres I à I I I . T e x t e , t r a d u c t i o n et n o t e s p a r E . N o d e t , a v e c la c o l l a b o r a t i o n d e G . Berceville, A . P a u l , É. W a r s c h a w s k i , 2 . B d e . , Paris 1 9 9 0 N o d e t , É.: L e texte d e s A n t i q u i t é s d e Josephe ( 1 . 1-10), R e v u e B i b l i q u e 9 4 , 1 9 8 7 , 323-375 Pelletier, A.: Flavius Josephe a d a p t a t e u r d e la Lettre d ' A r i s t é e . U n e réaction atticisante c o n t r e la K o i n è , Paris 1962 Pilhofer, P . : P r e s b y t e r o n K r e i t t o n . D e r Altersbeweis d e r j ü d i s c h e n u n d christlichen A p o l o g e t e n u n d seine V o r g e s c h i c h t e , T ü b i n g e n 1 9 9 0 P l ü m a c h e r , E . : L u k a s als hellenistischer Schriftsteller, G ö t t i n g e n 1972 P u c c i B e n Z e e v , M . : T h e Reliability o f J o s e p h u s Flavius: T h e C a s e o f H e c a t a e u s ' a n d M a n e t h o ' s A c c o u n t s of J e w s a n d J u d a i s m , J o u r n a l for t h e S t u d y of J u d a i s m 24, 1993, 2 1 5 - 2 3 4 Rajak, T . : C i ô c h e Flavio G i u s e p p e vide: Iosephus and the Essenes, i n : J o s e p h u s a n d t h e H i s t o r y o f t h e G r e c o - R o m a n P e r i o d . Essays in M e m o r y o f M o r t o n S m i t h , e d . b y F . P a r e n t e a n d J . Sievers, L e i d e n 1 9 9 4 , 1 4 1 - 1 6 0 R e i n a c h , T h . : Flavius Josephe. C o n t r e A p i o n . T e x t e établi e t a n n o t é p a r T h . R e i n a c h et t r a d u i t p a r L. B l u m , Paris 1 9 3 0 Rengstorf, K . H . (Hg.): A C o m p l e t e C o n c o r d a n c e t o Flavius J o s e p h u s , 4 Bde., L e i d e n 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 8 3 ; S u p p l e m e n t I: N a m e n w ö r t e r b u c h z u Flavius J o s e p h u s v o n A . S c h a l k , L e i d e n 1968 R i t o ô k , Z . : J o s e p h u s a n d H o m e r , A c t a a n t i q u a (Budapest) 3 2 , 1 9 8 9 , 1 3 7 - 1 5 2 R o s s , J . M . : J e s u s ' K n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k , Irish Biblical S t u d i e s 12, 1 9 9 0 , 4 1 - 4 7 R u n i a , D . T . : P h i l o in E a r l y C h r i s t i a n L i t e r a t u r e . A S u r v e y ( C o m p e n d i a R e r u m I u d a i c a r u m a d N T , I I I , 3), A s s e n - M i n n e a p o l i s 1 9 9 3 ; vgl. T h e S t u d i a P h i l o n i c a A n n u a l 6, 1 9 9 4 , 9 6 - 1 1 0 : R e f e r e n c e s t o Philo from J o s e p h u s u p t o 1 0 0 0 A D , T h e S t u d i a P h i l o n i c a A n n u a l 6, 1 9 9 4 , 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 Safrai, S.: S p o k e n L a n g u a g e s in t h e T i m e o f J e s u s , J e r u s a l e m P e r s p e c t i v e ( J e r u s a lem) 4 (Heft 1, 1991) 3 - 8 Schalit 1 9 6 8 : siehe R e n g s t o r f S c h ä u b l i n , C h r . : J o s e p h u s u n d d i e G r i e c h e n , H e r m e s 110, 1 9 8 2 , 3 1 6 - 3 4 1 Schlatter, A.: D i e h e b r ä i s c h e n N a m e n b e i J o s e p h u s , G ü t e r s l o h 1 9 1 3 ; a b g e d r u c k t i n : A. Schlatter, K l e i n e r e Schriften z u Flavius J o s e p h u s , h g . v. K . H . Rengstorf, D a r m stadt 1 9 7 0 , 1 7 3 - 2 7 6 ; vgl. S c h r e c k e n b e r g 1 9 6 8 , 169f. S c h n a b e l , P . : Berossos u n d d i e babylonisch-hellenistische L i t e r a t u r , L e i p z i g 1 9 2 3 Schreckenberg, H . a n d K . Schubert: Jewish Historiography a n d Iconography in Early a n d M e d i e v a l C h r i s t i a n i t y ( C o m p e n d i a R e r u m I u d a i c a r u m a d N T , I I I , 2), AssenM i n n e a p o l i s 1992 S c h r e c k e n b e r g , H . : B i b l i o g r a p h i e z u Flavius J o s e p h u s , L e i d e n 1 9 6 8 ; S u p p l e m e n t b a n d 1979 : D i e F l a v i u s - J o s e p h u s - T r a d i t i o n in A n t i k e u n d M i t t e l a l t e r , L e i d e n 1 9 7 2 : Rezeptionsgeschichtliche u n d textkritische U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u Flavius J o s e p h u s , L e i d e n 1977 S c h u b a r t , W . : D a s B u c h b e i d e n G r i e c h e n u n d R ö m e r n , Berlin 1907 S c h w a r t z , S.: J o s e p h u s a n d j u d a e a n Politics, L e i d e n 1 9 9 0 Shutt, R. J . H . : J o s e p h u s in Latin: A Retroversion in G r e e k a n d a n English T r a n s l a t i o n , J o u r n a l for t h e S t u d y o f P s e u d e p i g r a p h a 1, 1 9 8 7 , 7 9 - 9 3 S t e r n , M . (ed.): G r e e k a n d L a t i n A u t h o r s o n J e w s a n d J u d a i s m , e d i t e d w i t h I n t r o ductions, Translations a n d C o m m e n t a r y , 3 Bde., J e r u s a l e m 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 4

82

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

S t e r n , M . : H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a a n d T h e o p h r a s t u s o n J e w s a n d E g y p t i a n s , J o u r n a l of E g y p t i a n A r c h a e o l o g y 5 9 , 1 9 7 3 , 1 5 9 - 1 6 3 T e r i a n , A.: N o t e s o n t h e T r a n s m i s s i o n of t h e P h i l o n i c C o r p u s , T h e S t u d i a Philonica A n n u a l 6, 1994, 9 1 - 9 5 T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . (et alii editores): J o s e p h u s w i t h a n English T r a n s l a t i o n , vol. I - I X , L o n d o n 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 6 5 (I [ 1 9 2 6 ] : T h e Life. Against Apion) Theodoridis, Chr.: Drei neue F r a g m e n t e des G r a m m a t i k e r s Apion, Rheinisches M u s e u m 132, 1989, 3 4 5 - 3 5 0 W a c h o l d e r , B . Z . : E u p o l e m u s . A S t u d y of J u d a e o - G r e e k L i t e r a t u r e . C i n c i n n a t i 1974 W a d d e l l , W . G . (ed.): M a n e t h o w i t h a n English T r a n s l a t i o n , L o n d o n 1964 (first p r i n t e d 1940) W a l t e r , N . : F r a g m e n t e j ü d i s c h - h e l l e n i s t i s c h e r H i s t o r i k e r (= J ü d i s c h e Schriften aus h e l l e n i s t i s c h - r ö m i s c h e r Zeit, I, 2), G ü t e r s l o h 1980 : Z u r Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g e i n i g e r R e s t e f r ü h e r j ü d i s c h - h e l l e n i s t i s c h e r L i t e r a t u r bei J o s e p h u s , C l e m e n s u n d E u s e b , S t u d i a p a t r i s t i c a 7, 1966, 3 1 4 - 3 2 0 W e h r l i , F.: D i e S c h u l e d e s Aristoteles. T e x t e u n d K o m m e n t a r e , B a n d I V , Basel 1949.

THE DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY OF JOSEPHUS' CONTRA APIONEM PlETER W.

VAN DER H O R S T

University of Utrecht

5

In the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus works, Contra Apionem takes up 112 pages of Greek text, whereas his Vita adds up to about 80, Bellum ca. 685 and Antiquitates ca. 1835 pages, totalling some 2600 pages for the other three works. In Niese's edition the numbers are 96 pages for CA, 70 for Vita, 626 for Bell, and 1472 for Ant; all told, some 2170 pages for the other three works. As these numbers show, Josephus' treatise Contra Apionem is slightly more than 4 % (almost 4.2%) of his whole oeuvre. This implies that words used very often by Josephus could occur in his other works with a frequency on average 24 times as great as that in CA (that is to say, with almost the same frequency in Vita, roughly 6.5 times more frequently in Bell., and ca. 16.5 times more frequently in Ant.). That in many cases this is in­ deed more or less the case, can quickly be confirmed by some browsing in R e n g s t o i f s Concordance. Often enough, however, the distribution one finds turns out to be entirely different. N o w it has to be admitted that it is very hard to say at which point deviations from a word distribution pattern to be expected on average begin to be statistically relevant. W h e n words occur, for instance, 4 or 8 times as often in Bell., or 10 or 20 times as often in Ant., as in CA, there can be no doubt about the irrel­ evance of such data, because these minor divergences may well be due to sheer coincidence. But what can we say of cases in which a word occurs 13 times in CA over against only 4 times in Bell, and Ant. taken together, which is the case, e.g., with a p x c c i o r n q ? N o one would deny that in such a case the difference from what might on average be expected is so great that it cannot fail to be significant. And, of course, as we all know, dp%aioTr|<;, in the sense of the "antiquity" of the Jewish people, is one of the main foci of Josephus' 1

1

A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, e d . b y K . H . R e n g s t o r f in c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h others,, 4 vols., L e i d e n 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 8 3 .

84

PIETER W. VAN DER HORST

apologetic enterprise in CA. Sometimes, words which occur only in CA and not at all in Josephus' other writings are equally instructive and significant. It is on these that this contribution will mainly focus: they will be listed completely hereafter. But, before doing so, I wish to point out, by way of example and in random order, some inter­ esting cases of words that do occur in two, three or all of Josephus' writings but in a significantly different distribution than might be expected. 2

A very obvious instance consists of the numerous terms relating to war and warfare that are extremely frequent in Bell, and Ant., but very rare in CA; see for instance the concordance's long list of the many words beginning with axpctx-. It is much less clear, however, why Pot>A,r| occurs 100 times in Bell., Ant. and Vita, but never in CA, and why Siijicx; occurs 275 times in Bell., Ant. and Vita, but again never in C 4 . But the fact that 8fjXo<; occurs 18 times in CA, which is relatively often when compared to some 4 0 cases in Bell, and Ant., is easy to understand once it is seen that in CA it is most often used in the expression 8f\kov oxi KXA,.: over against the detractors of the Jewish people Josephus time and again states emphatically that "it is clear (or: obvious to all) that" they are completely wrong. T h e same situation may explain why, of the 6 4 cases of 8^ey%co in Josephus, no less than 16 are to be found in CA; why Borujid^co is found in 21 cases over against 5 4 instances in the rest of Josephus' writings (N.B.: 9ott)|iccox6v 10 occurrences in CA against 37 in the other writings); and why A,oi8op£co occurs 15 times in CA but only 10 times in the rest of Josephus. |LU)0O(;, jm)0et>cG, |II)0O^OY£CO, and JLIDGO^OYICX occur 8 times in CA against 9 times in the other works of Josephus, undoubt­ edly because of the fact that, in this work, he engages in polemics against pagan mythology and an effort to present the ideas of his opponents as nothing but myths. T h e fact that it is at least 20 authors 3

4

5

2

F o r t h e p a u c i t y o f studies o n t h e v o c a b u l a r y o f o u r a u t h o r see t h e short survey b y D . J . L a d o u c e u r , " T h e L a n g u a g e of J o s e p h u s , " Journal for the Study of Judaism 14 (1983) 1 8 - 3 8 , e s p . 1 9 - 2 0 . L a d o u c e u r ' s criticisms of t h e linguistic o b s e r v a t i o n s o n J o s e p h u s ' v o c a b u l a r y b y R . J . H . S h u t t , Studies in Josephus, L o n d o n 1 9 6 1 , a r e valid. A c o m p a r a b l e a n d r e l a t e d e x a m p l e , c h o s e n a t r a n d o m : a
4

5

THE DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY OF CONTRA APIONEM

85

a n d their writings that Josephus is dealing with in CA goes f a r in explaining the fact that o f s o m e 76 occurrences o f the words o\)YYpd(p£iv, ODYYpoccpri, o D Y y p a c p e v q a n d at>yypa|ijj,a in all his works n o less than 40 are found in CA, just as his polemics with some Greek poets may account f o r the 5 occurrences out of 9 of Tiovnxfic;. T h e relative frequent occurrence of indpx'oq (17 times in CA against 36 in the rest, always in the sense of "witness," never of "martyr!)" c a n be accounted f o r by Josephus' apologetic desire to adduce as many witnesses as possible to the truth of what he is saying. A n d Josephus' attempt to present Judaism as the best philosophy, actually as the source of the teaching of many Greek philosophers, is the expla­ nation of the fact that no less than 20 of the 37 occurrences of
7

N o w there are some 2 4 0 words that occur only in CA. However, 77 (or 79) of them appear in passages quoted by Josephus from other writers. T h e authors cited and the numbers of these words occurr­ ing in them are as follows (in alphabetical order): Agatharchides 1; Apion 8; Apollonius Molon 1; Berossus 3; Chaeremon 3; Choerilus 5; Clearchus of Soli 3; Hecataeus of Abdera 13; Lysimachus 6; M a n e tho 28 [or 30] ; Menander of Ephesus 5; Mnaseas 1. That is to say that there remain slightly over 160 words that are used by Jose­ phus himself only in CA. These will all be listed here with their place(s) 8

6

O f c o u r s e a p a r t from p r o n o m i n a , n e g a t i o n s , w o r d s s u c h a s 7ca<; e t c . I n J o s e p h u s ' s u m m a r y o f t h e T o r a h in t h e s e c o n d b o o k o f CA h e stresses t h e strict sexual ethics, w h i c h e x p l a i n s t h e fact t h a t 5 o u t o f 9 o c c u r r e n c e s o f |ii£i<; i n J o s e p h u s o c c u r h e r e . It m a y b e a d d e d h e r e t h a t t h e fact t h a t o f t h e 3 6 o c c u r r e n c e s of rcoinfiv in J o s e p h u s n o less t h a n 18 a r e i n CA is d u e t o t h e h e r d s m e n ' s (= Hyksos') p r o m i n e n t role in M a n e t h o ' s story t h a t is extensively q u o t e d b y J o s e p h u s . S o h e r e t h e striking d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e w o r d is entirely d u e t o a s o u r c e . T w o w o r d s a r e p r o b a b l y glosses; b u t if n o t , t h e y a r e f r o m M a n e t h o . 7

8

86

PIETER W. VAN DER HORST

of occurrence and the most applicable English equivalent (as listed in RengstorPs Concordance, with some exceptions) added. T h e list contains all 2 4 0 words, i.e. including the terms deriving from Josephus' pagan sources, but the latter are put between square brackets [. . .] without a translation being added but with a mention of the author's name. Only occasionally will short comments be added in order to highlight cases where the relation between this distinctive vocabulary and the main focus of the author is very obvious. This list is meant to be no more than a first modest step towards a study of Josephus' diction in CA. 9

a\ieiaQeio<;

2.167 u n b e g o t t e n (said of G o d ) , v.l. for d y e v n T o c ; ] 1.36; 2.7 ritual 2.236 r e p r o b a t e 2.228 exertion 1.83 p r o b a b l y a gloss, otherwise from M a n e t h o ] 1.83 p r o b a b l y a gloss, otherwise from M a n e t h o ] 2.220 o b e d i e n c e 2 . 2 1 ; 2.27 from A p i o n ] 2.255 allegory 2.202 t o cause a b o r t i o n (forbidden b y t h e Law) 2.189 i m m u t a b l e

[aU£T(X7C£lOTO<;

2.189

auvncrco*;

1.9 forgotten 2.147 r e a d i n g 2.282 lighting 2.217 p u b l i c p r o c l a m a t i o n 2.167 u n c h a n g e a b l e (said of G o d ) 1.160 n o t allowing c o n t r a d i c t i o n 1.203 conj. in a passage from H e c a t a e u s A b d e r i t a ] 2.137 u n a n s w e r e d 1.199 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ] 1.39 origin of m a n k i n d 1.111 t o send t o o n e a n o t h e r 2.163 v.l. for dvcutapocpdAAxo]

[dyevvT|TO(; ayioxeia &86ki|io<;

aQXoq [aiyxtnxiGzi [cxk

aKoXo\)9(a [aX,yo<;

dMnyopCa &|ißA,6co

avdyvcooK; &vdKca)oi<; &vcxKf|p'u£i<;

ävaXkoitoxoq dvavxippTiToq [dvarceToum

dvaTio^oYn^o^ [dvaTioaßEGXoq dvGpcoTcoyovta dvxaTiocrceAAco [dvTißdMco

9

10

11

v.l. for

dnETdOexcx;]

12

Also variae hctiones will b e m e n t i o n e d , b u t w i t h i n s q u a r e b r a c k e t s a n d w i t h v.l. added. J o s e p h u s says h e r e t h a t t h e anti-Jewish a u t h o r s a r e dSoKijioi aocpiaxaC. S e e o n this w o r d W . G r u n d m a n n in TWKTII 258f. It is w i t h Yvcburi d|ieTd0£TO<;, u n a l t e r a b l e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h a t t h e J e w s k e e p t o t h e rules of t h e i r L a w , says J o s e p h u s . " T h e e v i d e n c e for m y assertions as t o t h e a n t i q u i t y of o u r p e o p l e is consistent a n d dvavxippTjToq." 1 0

11

12

87

THE DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY OF CONTRA APIONEM

dvxutapd9eci<;

2.238

comparison

1 3

[aVTUWECO

1.75 from

Manetho]

dvx(ppr|ai<;

2 . 1 ; 2.2 r e f u t a t i o n

dvcouaAaa

2 . 2 5 0 i n c o n s i s t e n c y (in p a g a n c o n c e p t i o n s of deity)

dopioxoq

2 . 1 5 5 ; 2.171

dTcayopeDaK;

2.190

djciGavoTTiq

1.304 i n c r e d i b i l i t y (of L y s i m a c h u s '

drcoxporcaux;

2 . 2 4 9 t o b e s h u n n e d (of p a g a n theoi

[drcoTuuTcavi^co

1.148 f r o m

do6(pioxo<;

2.292 not

[daxei^oum

2 . 1 1 4 from

dxexvoq

2.191

(of M a n e t h o a n d

Apion)

undefined

prohibition

1 4

account)

1 5

apotropaioi)

Berossus]

1.12 s o n g (of H o m e r ) deceptive

16

Apion]

unfit

[di|iT|TO(;

1.198 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ]

a\)8iY£vt|<;

2.39 n a t i v e

[avxdp

1.173 from

Choerilus]

[at)X(xaX,eo^

1.173 from

Choerilus]

dcpaxoq

2 . 1 9 0 ineffable

d(pexo<;

2 . 2 2 9 free

from Apion]

(said of G o d )

1 7

[dcpri^icbxTiq

2.10 from

d(p\)f|(;

2 . 1 4 8 u n t a l e n t e d (?)

PoDpcovidco

2 . 2 2 ; 2 . 2 3 t o suffer from swollen i n g u i n a l

18

1.306; 1.308; 1.314 from [yeyuuvoixsvox;

1.191 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ]

[yeixvid^co

2.33 from

yeveidco

2.242 to be

yx>\ivao\ia

1.53

Apion] bearded

exercise

[8apx6(;

1.173 from

8eiuo<;

2 . 2 4 8 fear

13

glands

Lysimachus]

Choerilus] (deified)

19

" S i n c e o u r d e t r a c t o r s e x p e c t t o c o n f u t e u s b y a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e rival reli­ gions, it is impossible t o r e m a i n silent." U s e d i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h TcpoppTiaiq o f t h e positive a n d n e g a t i v e p r e c e p t s o f the T o r a h . N o t e t h a t cwuOavoq is u s e d 6 t i m e s i n CA a s c o m p a r e d t o 5 t i m e s i n Bell. + Ant.\ H e r e I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e m e a n i n g listed i n R e n g s t o r f ' s Concordance ( " n o t t o b e d e c e i v e d " ) . T h e J e w i s h laws a r e daocpiaxoi Xoycov 7capaaKe\)ai<;, " n o t d e c e p t i v e b y m e a n s of o r a t o r i c a l display (or: s t u d i e d w o r d s ) . " T h i s w o r d o c c u r s also as a v.l. for a$axoq in Ant. 1 5 . 3 6 4 . B u t this is a d o u b t f u l case since it o c c u r s i n J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e o f a w o r k b y A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n . S i n c e it is n o t a q u o t a t i o n , it m a y b e J o s e p h u s ' o w n d i c t i o n , b u t it m a y equally well d e r i v e from M o l o n himself. T h e s a m e p r o b l e m r e c u r s i n s o m e other instances. T h e s y n o n y m 8eijj.a d o e s o c c u r i n Bell, a n d Ant. 14

15

1 6

17

18

1 9

88

PIETER W . VAN DER HORST

[ÖEKaevvea

1.97 from

[Siaßa8i£co

1.202 from

8iaat)p|i6<;

1.205

Siaqxovia

1.12; 19;23;37 i n c o n s i s t e n c y ,

ÖIÖ(X(JK(XA,IK6<;

2 . 1 7 1 ; 2 . 2 1 4 d i d a c t i c , instructive (said of th

8l£pCÖ

2.198 to prescribe

Manetho] Hecataeus]

derision

20

8io8outop£Cü

[1.89 from M a n e t h o ]

5oKi|xaGxr|(;

2.279

eyKaTaa7üe{pco

2 . 2 3 9 t o sow

tester

contradiction

21

2.157 t o t r a v e r s e

22

[eiKOGieiq

1.95 from

EKJKXISEUG)

2 . 2 1 3 t o t e a c h t h o r o u g h l y (said of Moses)

Manetho]

[EKKTCÜGIC,

1.247; 1.266 f r o m

[EKTtmCÖUXX

2.11;

2.12 from

Manetho]

Apion]

[£U7ü£piG7iot>8aGTo<;

2 . 2 5 3 in a n

[ZV £VT|KOVTaT p£iq

1.231; 2 . 1 6 from

interpolation]

£V£0)8oKluicO

1.25 t o g a i n r e n o w n in

[£W£aKat8£Ka

1.79 from

[£^aaÖ£V£co

1.211 from

[££07CÄ,lGi(X

1.79 from

£^Op(^(0

1.257; 2.291 t o b a n i s h

EnayyeX^ia

1.24

zmiGnXeco

1.63 t o m a k e a v o y a g e b y ship t o

Manetho]

Manetho] Agatharchides] Manetho]

promise

[£7ußcö|LUTn<;

1.307 from

£7US£CÖ

2.192 to

2 3

Lysimachus]

need

1.307 from

2 4

Lysimachus]

1.28; 2.257 t o h a v e c o n t a c t w i t h

2 5

£7Cl7CVOia

1.37 i n s p i r a t i o n (of t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s )

£7ClG£|IV\)VOJJ.ai

2.31 t o p r i d e

[£7UGIVT|<;

1.290 from

Chaeremon] Berossus]

oneself

[eKlGVGTÖLGK;

1.149 from

£7Cl(popx{^C0

2.115 to b u r d e n with a heavy load

£7lO7CT£t)C0

2.294 to watch

2 0

26

over

27

J o s e p h u s states t h a t d e r i s i o n of t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e is t h e m a i n p u r p o s e of t h e author Agatharchides. J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s this as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f p a g a n s o u r c e s in 1.12; 19; 2 3 , b u t stresses its a b s e n c e i n t h e J e w i s h S c r i p t u r e s i n 1.37. N o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s uses öiacpcoveco 5 t i m e s , o f w h i c h 3 a r e f o u n d i n CA. T i m e , J o s e p h u s says, h a s b e e n t h e t r u e tester o f t h e J e w i s h L a w , a n d it h a s s t o o d t h e test. H e r e J o s e p h u s castigates p a g a n a u t h o r s for t h e i r p r o m i s e s t o p r e s e n t t h e r e a d ers w i t h t h e t r u t h , w h e r e a s t h e y d o n o t d o t h a t a t all. I n his a c t o f c r e a t i o n , J o s e p h u s says, G o d w a s n o t i n n e e d of a n y assistants. T h e w o r d o c c u r s also as a v.l. i n Ant. 1 3 . 2 4 7 . O n t h e d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n o f t h e p r o p h e t s i n J o s e p h u s see A . S c h l a t t e r , Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefiis, G ü t e r s l o h 1 9 3 2 , 5 8 - 5 9 . S e e t h e b r i e f discussion b y W . M i c h a e l i s i n TWNT V 3 7 4 - 5 . 2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

THE DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY OF CONTRA APIONEM

89

£7C07CTT|(;

2.187 o v e r s e e r

[ei)pT||ia

2 . 1 4 8 p r o b a b l y from A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n ]

[evpcoGxoq

1.201 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ]

ei>Xepei(x

1.57; 1.301 frivolity (of anti-Jewish writers)

£coypd(po<;

2.252 p a i n t e r

[f|7Cl6TT|q

1.186 from H e c a t a e u s ]

[GeuiGxevco Geoicpaxia

1.239 from M a n e t h o ] 2 . 1 6 5 t h e o c r a c y (the J e w i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n )

GeoXoyia [Geo^iaxeco

[1.78 a n d 1.237 from M a n e t h o ] 1.246; 1.263 from M a n e t h o ]

2 8

1.225

29

theology

[Gepeia

1.79 from

GexEoq

1.24 t o b e a d d e d

Manetho]

iepeia

2.267 priestess

[iGxopioypacpta

1.134 is a gloss]

IG%X) pOYVC0p,OGt)VT|

1.192 o b s t i n a c y (of J e w s h o l d i n g t o t h e Law) 3 1

KaivoXoyeco

1.222 t o assert s o m e t h i n g n e w

KaipOTcxia

2.127 seizing of a f a v o u r a b l e

KocAAiypacpeco [K(XV9(DV

2 . 2 2 5 t o write in a brilliant style (said of Plato)

Kaxdye^ax; Kaxdyouxx;

2 8

opportunity

2 . 1 1 4 ; 2 . 1 1 5 ; 2 . 1 2 0 from M n a s e a s ]

3 2

33

1.212 ridicule 2 . 1 1 5 heavily l a d e n

A l t h o u g h o c c u r r i n g in J o s e p h u s ' s u m m a r y . T h i s special w o r d f o r m a t i o n w a s u n d o u b t e d l y a creative " N e u b i l d u n g , " c o i n e d b y J o s e p h u s himself, for w h i c h h e m o r e o r less apologizes b y a d m i t t i n g t h a t it is " a forced e x p r e s s i o n " (ox; 8 ' ctv xiq ei'rcoi ßiaad^evo«; xov Aoyov). S e e G . S c h m i d , De Flavii Josephi elocutione observationes criticae, L e i p z i g 1 8 9 3 , 5 2 3 ; E . K a u t z s c h , Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments, T ü b i n g e n 1 9 1 1 , 5 7 - 9 ; W . M i c h a e l i s , TWKT I I I 9 0 8 909; Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefas 2 6 . 4 8 ; H . C a n c i k , " T h e o k r a t i e u n d Priesterherrschaft. D i e m o s a i s c h e V e r f a s s u n g b e i Flavius J o s e p h u s , CA 2 , 1 5 7 - 1 9 8 , " in J . T a u b e s (ed.), Religionstheorie und politische Theologie, B a n d 3 : T h e o k r a t i e , M ü n c h e n 1 9 8 7 , 6 5 - 7 7 ; Y . A m i r , "0EOKPATIA as a c o n c e p t of Political Philosophy: J o s e p h u s ' Presentation of M o s e s ' Politeia" Studia Classica Israelica 8 / 9 (1988) 8 3 - 1 0 5 ; a n d t h e critical discussion of C a n c i k ' s a n d A m i r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s b y C h r . G e r b e r , " D a s J u d e n t u m als T h e o k r a t i e " (forthcoming; p a p e r r e a d a t t h e P r a g u e 1995 m e e t i n g of t h e S N T S ) . S e e Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefiis 1 0 8 . J o s e p h u s states t h a t s o m e t i m e s p a g a n a u t h o r s t r y t o assert s o m e t h i n g n e w , h o w e v e r nonsensical it m a y b e , j u s t in o r d e r t o g a i n f a m e . B u t as q u o t e d b y A p i o n . R i d i c u l e is w h a t A g a t h a r c h i d e s p o u r s o u t o v e r p e o p l e w h o k e e p t h e s a b b a t h , J o s e p h u s says. N o t e t h a t Kaxayetaxco o c c u r s 3 times i n CA a g a i n s t 3 t i m e s i n t h e o t h e r works; mxayetaxaxoq h a s 2 o c c u r r e n c e s of w h i c h 1 is in CA. 2 9

3 0

31

3 2

3 3

90

PIETER W . VAN DER HORST

KCtt(Xp{0|iTlOl<;

1.155 2.238 2.119 2.242 2.217 1.248 1.254 1.254 2.223 2.263

KaTacnomdcö KÖLTÖLXPVÖOC,

Kiöapi^co KOTlVOq [Kp(XTT|Gl<^ KpoicoSeitax; K\)VOK£(paA,Oq KcouxpSeco Kcbveiov

[Amouaa tarcpdco

X,T|peco [taOoTouia [Xx>%viov ÄA)xvo(p6po<;

jiavxeiov [UXXVTIK6<; juKpovj/Dxia

uiaavOpcoma |j.iadv0pco7co(; [uoÄaß8ivo<; [lioA/uajiöq

u/ueco jj.copoA,oyia [v' (= 50) [v8' (= 54) [v0' (= 59) vEKponoXiq

3 4

34

calculation t o k e e p silent gold-plated t o play t h e c i t h a r a wild olive from M a n e t h o ] crocodile dog-faced b a b o o n t o ridicule hemlock 35

1.237 from M a n e t h o ] 1.256; 1.281; 2.15 t o b e a leper 2 . 1 9 8 ; 2.202 w o m a n in c h i l d b e d 1.252 t o c h a t t e r foolishly (said of M a n e t h o ) 1.235; 1.257; 1.267; 1.278; 1.296 from M a n e t h o ] 1.198 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ] 2.118 feast with lighting of l a m p s 2.120 l a m p - b e a r e r 2.162 1.236 1.226 2.291 2.148 1.307 1.289 2.265 2.267 2.115

3 6

37

oracle (Delphi) from M a n e t h o ] n a r r o w - m i n d e d n e s s (of anti-Jewish authors) m i s a n t h r o p y (which t h e J e w s d o n o t teach) m i s a n t h r o p i c (Apion accuses us of b e i n g so) from Lysimachus] from C h a e r e m o n ] l u m p of m e t a l t o initiate foolish talk (of Apion)

38

39

1.123 from M e n a n d e r of Ephesus] 1.159 from Berossus] 1.231 from M a n e t h o ] 2.36 necropolis

T h e full e x p r e s s i o n u s e d h e r e is KaxapOjiTjaK; TCDV xpovcov, c h r o n o l o g y . O f 6 o c c u r r e n c e s o f KaxapiGjieo) 3 a r e i n CA. S e e t h e n o t e o n dvTutapd0eai<;, a b o v e . Actually only § 2 3 5 is a q u o t e from M a n e t h o , b u t in t h e 4 o t h e r passages J o s e p h u s discusses M a n e t h o ' s assertions t o t h e effect t h a t originally t h e J e w s w e r e a g r o u p of E g y p t i a n l e p e r s w h o w e r e sent t o w o r k i n t h e s t o n e q u a r r i e s (A,i0oxop.iai, XaxojiCai). S e e S c h l a t t e r , Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josejus 6 7 . O n ^iiaav0pcon:ia a n d niodv0pcorco<; i n J o s e p h u s see Schlatter, Die Tlieologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Jose/us 2 9 , 2 5 0 ; a n d n o w especially L . H . F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, P r i n c e t o n 1 9 9 3 , 1 2 3 - 1 4 9 ( 1 4 2 - 1 4 9 o n CA). T h i s w o r d occurs, h o w e v e r , i n a passage in w h i c h J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s A n a x a g o r a s ' theory that t h e s u n w a s nothing m o r e t h a n a glowing l u m p of metal. 3 5

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

THE DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY OF CONTRA APIONEM veoxxôç vofiaôiKoç

2 . 2 1 3 y o u n g b i r d (from D e u t . 22.6) 1.255; 2 . 2 6 3 b y Z e u s 1.91 n o m a d i c

PU' (= 66) CevnAxxcua Cupnoic

1.231 from M a n e t h o ] 2.259 expulsion of f o r e i g n e r s 1.282 shaving

oiKoÔearcoxriç

2.128 d o m e s t i c m a s t e r 1.126 c o n s t r u c t i o n 2.270 a g r e e m e n t in o p i n i o n 1.281 living u n d e r t h e s a m e r o o f [1.311 from L y s i m a c h u s ] 2.26 designation 1.36 m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e 1.249 from M a n e t h o ] 1.238; 1.270 from M a n e t h o ] 1.202 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ] 2.165; 2.282 n o n e w h a t s o e v e r 2.3; 2.136 h a w k e r (= salesman, sc. Apion)

vr| A i a

oiKoÔojiTiaiç 6jxoYVû)|ioat)VT| ojicopôcpioç ôvouxxaia

ôvouxxaxoç [ôrcxàviov

[6pKCÛ|XOTécO [ôpvi8et>co ovôoaxioovv

ôx^aycoyoç rcapaKOuauxx

[rcaxdoaco [rcevxaéxriç [rcevxarcAeBpoc [TtevxnKovxaxeaaapeç rcepiepyia

[rcéxouou nhxoTï\<; rcoAAXoypoKpéco [rcpoÔfitaoaiç TupoKaxaPd^û) 7cpoKaxovojxàÇco

7ipoaa7ioô(ôco|Lii 7cpoa7iÀ,8Kop.ai [puy' (= 143) [pve' (= 155) [prixopiKoç

p\)7caivco 4 0

91

4 0

41

42

4 3

44

1.46 h e a r s a y 1.203 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ] 1.245 from M a n e t h o ] 1.198 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ] 1.122 from M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s ] 2.12 u n n e c e s s a r y activity 1.203 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ] 2.252 sculptor 2.251 to a d m i t to citizenship 1.243 from M a n e t h o ] 1.23 to p u t in w r i t i n g previously 1.84 to e n u m e r a t e p r e v i o u s l y 1.320 to a d d in o r d e r to c o m p l e t e 1.222 to sidle u p to s o m e o n e 45

1.126 1.126 1.178 1.220

from M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s ] from M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s ] from C l e a r c h u s ] to c o n t a m i n a t e

It is striking t h a t in his i n d i g n a t i o n J o s e p h u s twice uses this p a g a n f o r m o f strong language. O n this w o r d see O . Stàhlin in TWNT V 4 . T h i s w o r d is discussed b y K . H . R e n g s t o r f in TWNT I I 4 8 . A l t h o u g h t h e s e c o n d t i m e in J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e . H e a r s a y n o t k n o w l e d g e is t h e basis of r e p o r t s a b o u t J e w i s h history b y G r e e k a u t h o r s . O n rcapaion)© see G . Kittel in TWNT I 2 2 4 . O n this h a p a x see S c h m i d t , De Flavii Josephi elocutione 5 2 7 . 41

4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

92

PIETER W . VAN DER HORST

[aaßßcb

2 . 2 1 ; 2 . 2 6 ; 2 . 2 7 from A p i o n ]

4 6

[aeßaatevco

1 . 2 4 9 from

oeAavov

2 . 2 1 7 celery

[aiTojiexpEco [CTKOKpT)

1.79 from

Manetho]

2 . 1 1 from

Apion]

[GKEAAXO

1 . 1 7 3 from

[GvXkzKTOC,

1 . 1 9 8 from H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a ]

GVUJcepiXaußdvco

2 . 3 2 to i n c l u d e

[GvujtepuroÄico

2 . 1 1 from A p i o n ]

Manetho]

Choerilus] 47

CTUUTCAXXGGCO

1 . 2 9 8 t o c o n t r i v e (Apion is subject)

GvuxpiAxmuioum

1 . 1 1 0 t o s h a r e s o m e o n e ' s zeal

Gvuxpcovia

2 . 1 7 0 ; 2 . 1 7 9 h a r m o n y (effect of t h e L a w ) '

G\)va7co8t)po(iai [G\)vaxi|i(x^co

2 . 2 0 5 to l a m e n t together 1 . 2 4 1 from M a n e t h o ]

G1)V£K7lUrCCÜ

1 . 3 0 0 t o r u s h a w a y t o g e t h e r w i t h someon

Gt)ve^e^a\)vo|xai

1 . 2 7 9 ; 1 . 2 9 9 t o b e expelled t o g e t h e r (?)

[GVVeTClGTpatEVCO GDviepetx;

1.241 from M a n e t h o ] 2 . 1 9 4 fellow-priest

[GDVOIKEIOCO

1 . 1 8 1 from

GDVODGiaGTTiq

1 . 1 6 4 follower

G-ÜVTOJLlia

1.251 brevity 2 . 1 7 4 strain

GDvxovla Gcp\)pf|A,aTO(;

49

Clearchus]

51

[GXOA,CXGTIK6<;

2 . 1 1 9 of h a m m e r e d goldplates (?) 1 . 1 8 1 from C l e a r c h u s ]

xdpTapoc;

2.240

TSKVOKTOVO«;

2 . 2 0 2 o n e w h o kills h e r / h i s o w n c h i l d

underworld

[xeGGapaKovTaxpeiq

1 . 1 0 8 ; 1 . 1 2 1 from M e n a n d e r ]

TijiicopriTiKoq

2 . 2 1 4 penal

4 6

50

52

5 3

A p i o n asserts t h a t this is a n E g y p t i a n w o r d for a disease of t h e groin t h a t t h e Israelites suffered from so t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t w o r k a n d t h a t g a v e its n a m e t o t h e s a b b a t h . M . Scheller, laßßco u n d aaßßdxcöGt«;, Glotta 3 4 [1955] 2 9 8 - 3 0 0 , calls it a " S c h e r z b i l d u n g " a n d says it p r o b a b l y is A l e x a n d r i a n slang (Argot) a n d a n o t h e r att e m p t of A p i o n t o p o k e fun a t t h e J e w s . A p i o n i n c l u d e d all t h e rest of t h e J e w s i n his slander . N o t e t h a t avuxpcoveco o c c u r s 5 o u t of 10 times in CA a n d ai>n(pcovo<; 6 o u t of 12. O n b o t h w o r d s see t h e useful r e m a r k s b y O . Betz in 7 W V T I X 2 9 7 - 3 0 0 (esp. 3 0 0 o n J o s e p h u s : " E r r ü h m t d i e h e r r l i c h e cuficpcovCa in D e n k e n u n d L e b e n d e s j ü d i s c h e n V o l k e s , d i e in d e r Einheitlichkeit d e r L e b e n s f ü h r u n g u n d in d e r gleichen, m i t d e m G e s e t z ü b e r e i n s t i m m e n d e n Auffassung v o n G o t t b e g r ü n d e t sei"). O n this h a p a x see a g a i n S c h m i d t , De Flavii Josephi elocutione 5 2 7 . T h e w o r d o c c u r s h e r e , h o w e v e r , i n J o s e p h u s ' s u m m a r y of M a n e t h o . T h e m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m is far from c e r t a i n . T h e J e w i s h L a w r e g a r d s a w o m a n w h o c o m m i t s a b o r t i o n as o n e w h o kills h e r child. J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t p a r t of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n in 1.108 derives from a P h o e n i c i a n s o u r c e , b u t w e c a n n o t a s c e r t a i n h o w t r u e t o t h e facts t h a t is. 4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

5 1

5 2

5 3

THE DISTINCTIVE VOCABULARY OF CONTRA APIONEM

[xplOCKOVXaOKXCD

1.291 from

Chaeremon]

[xpoxoKODpaq

1.173 from

Choerilus]

[\)K

1.82; 1.83 from M a n e t h o ] 1.224 a n t a g o n i s m

i)7l£VaVTlOTT|q

93

54

1.304 t o s u r p a s s [\)7cepxapT|(;

1.243 from

55

Manetho]

2.283 industry

56

(piAoxpTKiaxeco

1.61 t o strive after

(pA\)dpt|jia

2 . 1 1 6 r a v i n g (of Apion)

(pA,\)ap(a

2.22 b a b b l e (of A p i o n )

cppdoK; [(puxeuuxx

2.12 s t a t e m e n t 1.199 from H e c a t e u s of A b d e r a ]

Xoipeioq

1.307 from 2.141 from

XOipoq

2.137 p o r k

yeyco

2.287 t o c e n s u r e

[xj/copoq

1.305; 1.306; 1.308; 1.312 from

riches

Lysimachus] pork

57

Lysimachus]

This brief survey highlights what are Josephus' main concerns in CA. H e wants to expose the totally unjustified character of the attacks o n Jews and Judaism by Greek authors: they are full of lies, they try to ridicule

and deride Judaism by slander (e.g., the charge of misan­

thropy) and frivolous talk, and their accounts often contain

inner

contradictions. In contradistinction to that, the Law of M o s e s is a source of harmony because it prescribes a theocratic

constitution,

and it is for that reason that the J e w s are keeping its precepts in steadfastness.

5 4

58

T h e antagonism between Egyptians a n d J e w s created bitter animosity. N o t e t h a t 4 o f t h e 6 o c c u r r e n c e s o f vnevoLvxioq a r e f o u n d i n CA. J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t L y s i m a c h u s surpasses o t h e r a u t h o r s i n t h e incredibility o f his lies. T h e m o t i f o f love o f w o r k is u s e d b y J o s e p h u s i n a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e Jewish people. I n this w o r k it h a s n o t b e e n m y p u r p o s e t o c e n s u r e t h e institutions o f o t h e r peoples, says J o s e p h u s a l m o s t a t t h e e n d o f CA. I o w e t h a n k s t o J a c k Levison for s o m e useful hints. 5 5

5 6

5 7

5 8

CONTRA APIONEM 1.28-56: A N ESSAY O N J O S E P H U S ' VIEW O F HIS O W N W O R K IN T H E C O N T E X T OF T H E JEWISH C A N O N P E R BILDE

University of Aarhus

1. Introduction Josephus' view of his own work is disputed in modern research. Ac­ cording to one trend which could be termed the Holscher-Laqueur school, it was governed by purely egoistical motives. Josephus' whole literary project was designed to benefit his personal survival, career and comfort. According to another school, Josephus regarded his work as a Jewish apologetic project designed primarily to benefit the Jewish people. His purpose was to contribute to reestablishing the tolerable political relations between R o m e and the Jews existing be­ fore the revolt in 6 6 - 7 0 (74), and further to defend Judaism in the face of the Hellenistic-Roman civilization. T h e second hypothesis is preferable because it helps to understand, interpret and explain more of the aspects of Josephus' life-long liter­ ary activity. However, the question of Josephus' view of his literary activity is not exhausted with the reference to his apologetic wish to work for his own people, as the following observations in modern Josephus research indicate. First, several scholars have noticed that Josephus seems to identify himself with some of the personalties w h o m he describes in his Jew­ ish Antiquities (Ant), in particular Joseph, Jeremiah, Daniel and Esther. 1

2

3

1

H ö l s c h e r 1916; L a q u e u r 1920; l a t e r followed especially b y W e b e r 1 9 2 1 ; Schalit 1 9 7 5 ; C o h e n 1979; S. S c h w a r t z 1990. I n Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 1 2 6 - 1 4 1 , I h a v e p r e s e n t e d this s c h o o l as t h e classical conception of Josephus. I n Bilde 1988, 1 4 1 - 1 5 0 , I h a v e t e r m e d this school t h e modern conception of Josephus. It w a s p r e p a r e d a n d a n t i c i p a t e d b y scholars like B l o c h 1879; D r ü n e r 1896; Niese 1896 a n d , in p a r t i c u l a r , T h a c k e r a y 1929. It w a s e l a b o r a t e d especially b y F a r m e r 1956; M i c h e l in several p u b l i c a t i o n s ; S h u t t 1 9 6 1 ; L i n d n e r 1972; A t t r i d g e 1976; (less in 1984); v a n U n n i k 1 9 7 8 ; R a j a k 1 9 8 3 ; M o e h r i n g 1984; H a d a s - L e b e l 1989; Sterling 1992; M a s o n 1994. W i t h his n u m e r o u s w o r k s , especially 1984; 1992a, F e l d m a n h a s p l a c e d himself in a m i d d l e p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n these t w o schools. T h u s , in p a r t i c u l a r , B r a u n 1956; F a r m e r 1956; B l e n k i n s o p p 1974; Delling 1974; v a n U n n i k 1 9 7 8 ; D a u b e 1980; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 7 0 - 7 9 ; M a s o n 1994, 1 7 6 - 1 7 7 . 2

3

CONTRA APIOMEM

95

1.28-56

In Ant. 2 . 7 - 2 0 0 , Josephus renders the story of his namesake Joseph (Gen. 37-50) in great detail. In Ant. 1 0 . 8 4 - 1 8 0 , Josephus presents a lengthy paraphrase of parts of the book of Jeremiah (chs. 22, 26, 29, 3 3 - 3 4 , 3 7 - 4 3 and 52). Further, in Ant. 10.186-281 (with 11.337; 12.322) and 11.184-296, Josephus pays substantial attention to Daniel and Esther. O n e reason for Josephus' interest in these biblical fig­ ures is the similarity between their "diaspora existence" and Josephus' own destiny in R o m e . Like Josephus, they were brought away from Judaea and had to spend their life in foreign countries. Another parallel can be seen in their relations with the rulers of these foreign coun­ tries. Like Joseph, Daniel and Esther, Josephus was closely related to a foreign ruling house (the Flavians). And like these three, Josephus made use of his privileged position to benefit his own people. Second, and more specifically, in a critical situation of war in Jerusalem, Josephus, like Jeremiah, turned against the leaders of his own people because he believed that war was disastrous and, like Jeremiah, Josephus suffered for taking this position. Third, Josephus thus appears to have regarded himself as a prophet and, in this role, to have compared himself not only with Jeremiah but with Daniel as well. Josephus claimed to have foreseen the JewishRoman war and the Jewish defeat in general and the fall of Jotapata in particular (Bell. 3.351, 406). Exactly like Daniel, Josephus claims to have had nightly visions about the future in which he foresaw the 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4

Cf. F e l d m a n 1990, 3 8 8 , 4 0 7 ; 1 9 9 2 b , 3 8 0 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 7 7 - 7 8 ; M a s o n 1994, 177. Cf., in p a r t i c u l a r , C o h e n 1982; B e g g 1 9 8 8 , 3 5 1 - 3 5 5 . Cf. V e r m e s 1 9 9 1 ; F e l d m a n 1992c; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 7 4 - 7 7 ; M a s o n 1994, 1 6 7 - 1 7 4 . Cf. F e l d m a n 1970; D a u b e 1976, 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 . J e r . 2 1 - 2 2 , 2 6 - 2 7 , 3 6 - 3 8 ; cf. Ant. 1 0 . 1 1 2 - 1 1 9 . I n his s p e e c h to t h e rebels in J e r u s a l e m (Bell. 5 . 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 ) , J o s e p h u s refers t o t h e c o m p a r a b l e situation d u r i n g t h e siege a n d c o n q u e s t of J e r u s a l e m b y t h e B a b y l o n i a n s in 5 9 8 a n d 5 8 6 B C E . A n d in Bell. 5 . 3 9 1 - 3 9 3 , J o s e p h u s d i r e c d y c o m p a r e s himself with J e r e m i a h : cf., e.g., M o n t g o m e r y 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 1 , 3 0 2 ; F a r m e r 1956, 9; B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 4 ; L i n d n e r 1972, 3 2 - 3 3 ; D e l l i n g 1974, 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 ; M a y e r - M o l l e r 1974, 2 8 4 ; v a n U n n i k 1978, 5 2 - 5 3 ; D a u b e 1980, 2 0 - 3 0 ; D . R . S c h w a r t z 1 9 8 1 , 135; C o h e n 1982, 3 7 4 - 3 7 7 ; B e g g 1 9 8 8 , 3 5 2 ; H a d a s - L e b e l 1989, 2 0 2 - 2 0 6 ; S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 3 7 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 7 2 - 7 4 ; M a s o n 1994, 176, 178. F e l d m a n 1 9 9 0 , 3 8 8 , 4 0 6 , insists t h a t , in this text, J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t directly c o m p a r e himself w i t h J e r e m i a h q u a p r o p h e t . Cf., e.g., P o z n a n s k i 1887, 4; B r a u n 1956, 5 6 ; C h e s n u t 1 9 7 1 , 9 1 - 9 2 ; R e i l i n g 1 9 7 1 , 156; L i n d n e r 1972, 4 9 - 6 8 ; B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 4 - 2 4 5 ; M a y e r - M o l l e r 1974, 2 8 4 ; v a n U n n i k 1978, 4 6 ; D a u b e 1980, 2 0 ; A u n e 1982, 4 2 0 - 4 2 1 ; M o e h r i n g 1984, 9 0 7 - 9 1 4 ; Sterling 1992, 2 3 6 - 2 3 8 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 3 5 - 7 9 (esp. 7 4 - 7 7 ) . M a s o n 1994 h a s convincingly d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e of D a n i e l for J o s e p h u s p e r s o n a l a n d lit­ e r a r y self-understanding. F e l d m a n 1990, especially 4 0 5 - 4 0 8 , a r g u e s t h a t J o s e p h u s d i d n o t r e g a r d himself as a p r o p h e t in t h e sense of t h e biblical p r o p h e t s . V e r m e s 1991 d o e s n o t discuss J o s e p h u s ' identification w i t h D a n i e l . 5

6

7

8

9

10

5

96

PER BILDE 11

Jewish defeat as well as the destiny of the foreign ruler (Bell. 3.351). With this observation, we touch upon the intriguing issue of Josephus' view of Jewish prophecy. Apparently, Josephus did not share the view, so popular in earlier scholarship, that the Jewish prophetic spirit had died out and had disappeared at some time between the Babylonian exile and the Hasmonean period. This emerges not only from his presentation of himself as a prophet but also from the several instances where he describes other recent or contemporary figures as belonging to the prophetic category. Fourth, in this connection scholars such as Michel, Lindner, Blenkinsopp, Mason and Gray have discussed the importance of Josephus' status as a Jewish priest. In Josephus' own eyes, his priestly status seems to be related to his position as a prophet since both were 12

13

14

15

11

M o s t of t h e s c h o l a r s m e n t i o n e d in n o t e 10, in o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r , a c c e p t t h e g e n u i n e n e s s of J o s e p h u s ' p r o p h e c y , w h i l e this is r e j e c t e d b y , e.g., M i c h e l 1954, 6 3 ; Schalk 1975, 2 8 0 - 3 0 0 ; Rajak 1983, 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 . Cf. R e i l i n g 1 9 7 1 ; A u n e 1982; F e l d m a n 1 9 9 0 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 . Cf. Ps. 7 4 . 9 ; 1 M a c e . 4 . 4 6 ; 9 . 2 7 ; 1 4 . 4 1 , a n d a n u m b e r of R a b b i n i c texts. T h u s K . M ü l l e r 1 9 8 2 , 1 8 8 - 1 8 9 ; B e c k w i t h 1 9 8 5 , 3 6 9 - 3 7 6 ; F e l d m a n 1990, 3 9 8 - 4 0 7 . T o ­ d a y it s e e m s t o b e i n c r e a s i n g l y a c c e p t e d t h a t this i d e a is a R a b b i n i c c o n s t r u c t i o n ; cf. B o u s s e t - G r e s s m a n n 1 9 2 7 , 3 9 5 - 3 9 9 ; M e y e r 1959, esp. 8 2 0 , 8 2 7 ; A u n e 1982, 2 4 0 ; G r e e n s p a h n 1989; G r a y 1993, 9 - 3 4 . J o s e p h u s refers t o J o h n H y r k a n o s as h a v i n g t h e gift of p r o p h e c y (Bell. 1.68-69) {=Ant. 1 3 . 3 9 9 - 3 0 0 (cf. 1 3 . 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 ) ) , cf. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 1 6 - 2 3 ; t o t h e Essene " p r o p h e t s " J u d a s (Bell. 1 . 7 8 - 8 0 (= Ant. 1 3 . 3 1 1 - 3 1 3 ) ) , S i m o n (Bell. 2.213), a n d M e n a h e m (Ant. 1 5 . 3 7 3 - 3 7 9 ) , cf. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 8 0 - 1 1 1 ; t o t h e s t r a n g e figure J e s u s S o n of A n a n i a s (Bell. 6 . 3 0 0 - 3 0 9 ) , cf. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 5 8 - 1 6 3 ; t o P h a r i s a i c p r o p h e c y (Ant. 1 4 . 1 7 2 176; 1 5 . 3 - 4 , 3 7 0 ; 1 7 . 4 1 - 4 5 ) , cf. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 1 4 8 - 1 5 8 ; finally, t o a n u m b e r of " s i g n " o r "false" p r o p h e t s (Bell. 2 . 2 6 1 - 2 6 3 ; 6 . 2 8 5 ; Ant. 2 0 . 1 6 9 - 1 7 2 ; 2 0 . 9 7 , 169), cf. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 1 1 2 - 1 4 4 . T h e stories a b o u t t h e E s s e n e " p r o p h e t s " c o r r e s p o n d w i t h J o s e p h u s ' g e n e r a l r e m a r k o n t h e g r o u p in Bell. 2 . 1 5 9 : " T h e r e a r e s o m e a m o n g t h e m w h o profess t o foretell (jipoyivcocKeiv) t h e future, b e i n g v e r s e d from t h e i r early y e a r s in h o l y b o o k s , v a r i o u s f o r m s of p u r i f i c a t i o n a n d a p o t h e g m s of p r o p h e t s (rcpocpriTcov); a n d s e l d o m , if e v e r , d o t h e y e r r in t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n s (rcpoocYopevGEoiv)" (translation from t h e L o e b - e d i t i o n ) . It h a s b e e n n o t i c e d b y , e.g., R e i l i n g 1 9 7 1 , 156; B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 240; F e l d m a n 1990 o n p . 4 0 5 F e l d m a n specifically n o t e s t h e e x c e p t i o n of C l e o d e m u s M e l c h i o r & J o h n H y r c a n u s , t h a t J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o use t h e v e r y t e r m " p r o p h e t " (jcpo(pf|iTi<;) o n l y o n t h e biblical p r o p h e t s w h i l e , in t h e cases of J o h n H y r c a n u s , t h e E s s e n e s , t h e P h a r i s e e s , t h e "false" p r o p h e t s a n d himself, h e uses a n u m b e r of o t h e r expressions, e.g., |KXVTI<;, ayyetax;, 8KXKOVO<;. H o w e v e r , this is n o t a c c u r a t e , cf, e.g., Bell. 1 . 6 8 - 6 9 ; 4 . 3 8 6 ; 6 . 2 8 6 ; Ant. 1.240; 8 . 3 3 9 ; 1 3 . 2 9 9 ; CA 1.312, as n o t i c e d by, e.g., A u n e 1982; G r e e n s p a h n 1 9 8 9 , 4 1 ; L e i m a n 1989, 5 5 - 5 6 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 9 - 3 4 . G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 2 6 - 3 4 , 165, e m p h a s i z e s correctly t h a t J o s e p h u s ' n o t i o n of " p r o p h e c y " is m u c h b r o a d e r t h a n t h a t of m a i n s t r e a m m o d e r n s c h o l a r s h i p , cf. similarly F e l d m a n 1990, 3 9 4 . T h u s M i c h e l 1 9 6 9 , 2 4 4 ; 1 9 8 4 , 9 6 1 - 9 6 2 , 9 7 4 ; L i n d n e r 1 9 7 2 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 7 5 , 147; B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 ; M a s o n 1988; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 2 0 - 2 1 , 5 3 - 5 8 , 166, cf. Attridge 1976, 1 1 - 1 6 . R a j a k 1 9 8 3 , 1 8 - 1 9 , is skeptical in h e r e v a l u a t i o n of J o s e p h u s ' state­ m e n t s o n his s t a t u s as p r i e s t a n d p r o p h e t . 12

1 3

1 4

15

CONTRA APIONEM

1.28-56

97

related to the specific knowledge of the sacred Jewish writings, with their revelation of the will and plan of God, thus especially in Bell. 3.351-353. An adequate examination of Josephus' view of his literary work ought to pay attention to this evidence of his ideas about his own status, as rightly pointed out in recent research. Thus, Josephus seems to have regarded himself as related to major biblical figures as Joseph, Jeremiah, Daniel and Esther; especially, he identified himself with the prophet Jeremiah, who in a political and military situation com­ parable to that of Josephus took a similar stand; at the same time, Josephus appears to have seen himself as a prophet like Jeremiah and Daniel; further, Josephus apparently viewed this role of his in close connection with his status as a Jewish priest; finally, he seems to have seen both these roles as rooted in his close knowledge of the sacred Jewish writings. Perhaps to our surprise, in Contra Apionem (CA) ch. 1, Josephus describes his own writings in some sort of relationship with the Jew­ ish Bible. Because the notions of "prophet" and "priest" reappear in this context, as we shall see, I have chosen to analyze precisely CA 1.28-56 in this essay. Accordingly, it is the purpose of the present paper to provide a deeper understanding of Josephus' ideas about his own work by examining these ideas in connection with his selfunderstanding as Jewish priest and prophet. The starting point of this study is a survey of the context of CA 1.28-56 which encompasses the overall interests of Josephus in this part of the book. This survey is followed by an examination of Josephus' remarks on the Jewish Bible (1.28-41) and by an analysis and interpretation of his remarks on his own writings in this context (1.47-56). T h e essay concludes with a discussion of some of the implications of this particular reading of CA 1.28-56. 16

17

16

Similarly in Bell. 2 . 1 5 9 (cf. n o t e 14), w h e r e J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s t h e p r o p h e t i c gift of t h e Essene p r o p h e t s w i t h t h e i r " b e i n g v e r s e d from t h e i r e a r l y y e a r s in h o l y b o o k s (p{ptan<; iepai<;)", cf. M o n t g o m e r y 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 1 , 2 8 0 ; B l e n k i n s o p p 1 9 7 4 , 2 4 7 2 5 0 ; M a s o n 1994, 187. T h u s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p r o p h e c y a n d p r i e s t h o o d a p p e a r s to b e i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s as well as t o t h e Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y a n d s u c h a figure as t h e H a s m o n e a n J o h n H y r c a n u s (cf. n o t e 14), cf. B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 2 , 247-262. T h u s , j u s t like B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 3 9 , I a m i n t e r e s t e d in J o s e p h u s ' i d e a s a b o u t himself, n o t in " v a l i d a t i n g o r i n v a l i d a t i n g his c l a i m s " , as w a s — a n d i s — s o c o m m o n in t h e H o l s c h e r - L a q u e u r school. 17

98

PER BILDE

2. The context of C A

1.28-56 18

Contra Apionem is a work of controversy and polemics. It does not, however, begin with an attack on the Alexandrian scholar Apion (living in the first half of the first century C E ) , which has given this work its modern title. Contra Apionem opens with polemical remarks on some anonymous critics of Josephus' recent major work, The Jew­ ish Antiquities. Josephus' opponents are reported to have disputed his arguments in this work on the antiquity of the Jewish people by referring to the fact that the Jews had been mentioned only rarely by Greek historians (CA 1.2). Next, Josephus establishes the purpose of Contra Apionem to be that of rejecting this position, to "correct the ignorance of others, and to instruct all w h o desire to know the truth concerning the antiquity of our race" (1.3). Thus, the subject of CA is very much the problem of proper his­ toriography (cf. Cohen 1988, 1, 3). Because his opponents had referred to Greek historians as their main evidence, Josephus was compelled to criticize this generally admired endeavour. Contra Apionem can thus to a large extent be characterized as an outright attack on Greek his­ toriography. Josephus opens his critique of Greek historiography by disputing the foundations of the universal admiration it enjoyed in the ancient world. According to Josephus, Greek civilization was a "modern" p h e n o m e n o n with no respectable age and traditions (1.6-7). Besides, the youngest part of Greek culture was precisely the writing of history (1.7). In fact, the "Oriental" civilizations were generally recognized to be much older than Greek civilization, and in many respects the Greeks had actually been the pupils of the "Orientals" (1.8-14). Further, Greek historiography was not only a recent phenomenon. 19

20

21

22

18

Cf. t h e c o m m e n t a r i e s b y J . G . M ü l l e r 1 8 7 1 ; v o n G u t s c h m i d t 1 8 9 3 ; T h a c k e r a y 1926; R e i n a c h - B l u m 1930. I h a d n o access t o T r o i a n i 1977, a n d I h a v e n o t yet seen t h e a n n o u n c e d c o m m e n t a r y b y K a s h e r . F u r t h e r , I refer generally to Blenkinsopp 1974; S c h ä u b l e i n 1982; M o e h r i n g 1984, 8 6 8 ; C o h e n 1988; S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 4 4 - 2 4 5 ; G r a y 1993, 7-29. O n A p i o n , see J . G . M ü l l e r 1 9 7 1 / 1 9 6 9 , 1 5 - 1 6 ; v o n G u t s c h m i d t 1 8 9 3 , 3 5 6 371. A c c o r d i n g to J . G . M ü l l e r 1 8 7 1 / 1 9 6 1 , 17, t h e original title was Ttepixcov 'IovÖcucov 19

2 0

dpxaioTTiToq. 21

It e m e r g e s from t h e s u b s e q u e n t text {CA 1.47-56) t h a t — p r o b a b l y a l r e a d y from t h e b e g i n n i n g — J o s e p h u s h a s in m i n d his first m a j o r w o r k , The Jewish War (Bellum Judaicum) {Bell.) as well. Cf. S c h ä u b l e i n 1982, 3 1 7 - 3 2 2 ; C o h e n 1988, 5; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 9 - 1 0 . 2 2

CONTRA APIONEM

1.28-56

99

It also lacked solid foundation and, consequently, reliability. Fre­ quently, Josephus continues, Greek historians are inconsistent in their descriptions of the same events (1.15-17, cf. 1.26). Even the respected Thucydides has been "accused of error by some critics" (1.18). Josephus finds the main reason for this situation in "the original neglect of the Greeks to keep official records of current events" (1.20). Josephus points out a second reason for the "inconsistencies" of Greek historiography in its preference for rhetoric, flattery and polemics at the expense of the endeavour "to discover the truth" (1.24, cf. 1.23-27). In contrast, the "Orientals" in general and the Jews in particular have always paid attention to and cared highly for keeping official records (1.28-29). A m o n g the Jews this task was reserved for the "prophets" and the "priests", and great care was taken to secure the genuine lineage of this last group (1.30-36). A crucial passage follows (1.37-38), which, unfortunately, is very brief and concentrated: the Jews possess only 22 books, which are said to contain a consistent account of the whole history of the Jew­ ish people. This situation is due to the fact that the Jews allow the "prophets" alone to write history, and they have obtained: their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred (1.37). It appears that Josephus regarded the "prophets" as the authors of the biblical books, whereas he seems to have seen the "priests" as keepers of various records, among those the genealogies of the priests themselves (1.28-36; cf. Gray 1993, 10-11). Josephus continues by classifying the "prophetical" books in three groups: 1) the five books of Moses, "comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver;" 2) thirteen books covering the period "from the death of Moses until Artaxerxes," when "the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times," and 3) four books containing "hymns to G o d and precepts for the conduct of human life" (1.39-40). The history of the period from Artaxerxes ( 4 6 5 - 4 2 4 BCE) down to "our own time" has also been written, "but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets" (1.41).

100

PER BILDE

Josephus goes on by underlining the reverence of the Jews for these scriptures. T h e y have not "ventured either to add or to re­ move a syllable;" they regard them "as the decrees of God," and they have always been ready "cheerfully to die for them" (1.42). T h e Greeks have an entirely different attitude to their literature. This attitude corresponds with the problematical stance of the Greek historians, w h o do not care for the historical facts. According to Josephus, this critical evaluation is confirmed by the Greek historians w h o have recently described the Jewish-Roman war without first­ hand knowledge (1.44—46). In contrast, Josephus' own account of the same war has been based on personal participation in the revolt and on his own observations of the actual events. Vespasian, Titus and other noble participants in the war have testified to these qualities (1.47-52). Therefore, Josephus' opponents have no solid basis for their critique of his works. The Jewish Antiquities as well as The Jewish War are impeccable precisely because they rest on the Jewish books (records) on the one hand and on primary observation on the other hand (1.53-56). After this "digression" (Cohen 1988, 2), Josephus seems to start all over again by indicating the outline for the following work (1.57-59). H e begins by explaining the relative silence of the Greek historians on the Jews (1.60-68), and he goes on to survey some non-Jewish works which, in fact, mention the Jews (1.69-72), beginning with Manetho (1.73-105). Thus, the main issue in CA 1.1-105 may be stated as the allegedly objective conflict between Greek and Jewish historiography (cf. Cohen 1988). However, Josephus addresses this controversy subjectively be­ cause he is part of the conflict. As is the case in several other parts of his works, Josephus' own person plays an important part in the argument in this part of Contra Apionem. Josephus identifies his own works with Jewish literature generally, and thus his own works are brought into a close contact with the sacred Jewish books. Still, the line of thought in CA 1.1-56 is not crystal-clear. The point of departure is the attacks by critics of Josephus on his latest work. In this specific controversy, the strategy of Josephus seems to be to generalize this conflict and to transform it into a fundamental 23

24

2 3

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e s e r e m a r k s a r e n o t t r e a t e d in C o h e n 1988. Similarly C o h e n 1 9 8 8 , 2 - 3 , w h o refers t o o t h e r w e a k p o i n t s in Contra Apionem as well ( 1 9 8 8 , 8 - 9 ) ; a n d G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 10. 2 4

CONTRA APIOMEM

101

1.28-56

opposition between Greek and Oriental/Jewish historiography. Josephus claims that, in this conflict, the basic issue is that of historical reliability: Greek historiography is unreliable whereas Jewish writing of history is reliable. This evaluation is based on the criterion of written records (or sources). Greek history writing is also a recent phenomenon, and it is inconsistent because it is governed by rheto­ ric and not controlled by the use of written sources. In contrast, Jewish historical writing is age-old, as well as consistent, because it has always been based on carefully kept, written records. It is not quite clear what Josephus means by these "records" (dvaypacpdq). O n the one hand he refers to the Jewish "archives" with the written genealogies of the priests (1.30-36), on the other hand he points to the Jewish Bible of 22 books (1.37-43). T h e idea seems to be that the canonical books figure as "historiography" whereas the priestly genealogies may be seen both as an example of "written records" and as a guarantee of quality of the priestly guardians of the public records.

3. C A 1.28-43

on the Jewish Bible

In this essay, it is not necessary to discuss the specific information in CA 1.38-41 on a Jewish canon of 22 books, nor the possible identifi­ cation of these books, nor to compare the information of CA 1.3841 with related contemporary texts such as 4 Ezra 1 4 . 4 2 - 4 6 . Here we focus on other aspects of CA 1.28-43, first and foremost on what Josephus is writing about the authors of the Jewish records and sa­ cred books. 25

In CA 1.28-29, Josephus emphasizes that, in Egypt and Babylonia, the "priests" and the "Chaldeans" played a key role as writers and keepers of "their chronicles" (xdq dvaypOKpdq). A similar situation applies to the Jews, who from ancient times have "assigned" (rcpoaxd^avTeq) this task "to their chief priests and prophets". In CA 1.30-36, Josephus describes the great care which the Jews took to "ensure that the priests' lineage should be kept unadulterated and pure" (1.30).

2 5

Cf. J . G . M ü l l e r 1 8 7 1 , 9 9 - 1 0 3 ; Fell 1909; K a t z 1956; M e y e r 1 9 7 4 ; B e c k w i t h 1985; C h r i s t e n s e n 1986 (which I h a v e n o t seen); L e i m a n 1989; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 2 4 - 2 6 , for a n e x a m i n a t i o n of these p r o b l e m s .

102

PER BILDE

T h e main problem in our text could be claimed to lie in 1 . 3 7 - 3 8 / 39, where Josephus appears to make two short circuits, one from the priestly genealogies to the Jewish Bible, and one from the "priests" to the "prophets". At first, Josephus asserts that, in the former section (1.30-36), he has demonstrated "that with us it is not open to everybody to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written" (1.37). Next, he jumps directly to the 22 books of the Jewish canon (1.38). T h e n , Josephus refers to the "fact"—which has only slightly been suggested in 1.29—that "the prophets alone had this privilege", namely of writing the holy books (1.37), and not the "genealogies" that were described in 1.30-36. Therefore, it seems impossible to avoid Théodore Reinach's conclusion, that: J o s è p h e c o n f o n d v o l o n t a i r e m e n t la t e n u e des registres généalogiques, telle qu'elle était p r a t i q u é e sous le s e c o n d t e m p l e p a r le sacerdoce, avec la m a n i è r e t o u t e différente d o n t furent c o m p o s é s les ancient livres historiques d e la B i b l e . 26

However, in the context of our present examination the main point of this section lies in Josephus' statement about the authors of the Jewish biblical books. These are said to be the "prophets" (oi 7cpo(pf|Tai) and the "prophets alone", and they are said to have been "inspired" by God. It was only through this divine inspiration that they—or rather "he", namely Moses—obtained " their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history" (1.37). As for the history of their own times, the divine inspiration is not directly mentioned, and the "prophets" are said to have committed "to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred" (xà ôè kccO' aircoùç cdç éyévexo aacpcoç auyypacpovxcov) (1.37). 27

These ideas are presented programmatically in 1.39-40: (By the gift of divine inspiration) Moses wrote this history of 3000 years (the five "books of Moses"). After Moses, the "subsequent" "prophets" wrote the history of the Jewish people from the death of Moses to King Artaxerxes in thirteen books. T h e remaining four books of "hymns to G o d and precepts for the conduct of human life" are not directly said to have been written by "prophets". It seems, however, to be the case as it appears from the wording "the prophets alone". 28

2 6

R e i n a c h - B l u m 1930, 1 1 3 ; cf. T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 , 174, n o t e a. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 1 1 , distinguishes similarly b e t w e e n t w o different historical p e r i o d s w h i c h a r e d e s c r i b e d b y t h e " p r o p h e t s " in t w o different m a n n e r s . CA 1.37; cf. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 10, n o t e 7. 2 7

28

CONTRA APIONEM

1.28-56

103

And the reason why this is not stated directly appears to be that here Josephus is particularly interested in historiography, and not in poetry. Therefore, he allows himself to be very brief on the third group, the so-called "writings". Accordingly, in CA 1.37-40, Josephus looks at the Jewish Bible primarily as historiography, and he characterizes the authors of the canonical books as divinely inspired "prophetical" writers of accurate history. This interpretation appears to be confirmed by 1.41. Here Jose­ phus states briefly that the history of the period from Artaxerxes down "to our own time" has in fact been written—obviously by Jew­ ish authors. But Josephus does not state explicitly that these authors were "prophets". H e remarks only that these historical works have "not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets". This sentence—xfiv xcov npocpniSv &KpiPfj 8ia8o%f|v—seems to indicate that Josephus also regarded these authors as "prophets". T h e problem, as he saw it, was only that these "prophets" did not succeed each other without interruption. Accordingly, the central idea in CA 1.37-41 seems to be that the Jewish writers of history, from the beginning of Moses and down "to our own time" were divinely appointed "prophets" w h o were able to write consistent and reliable history, partly because of their divine inspiration, partly because of the existence of carefully kept (by Jewish priests) written records, and partly because of their exact description of contemporary events. 29

30

4. Josephus' Own Writings in This Context In the following section, Josephus aims at returning to the discussion of his own writings (CA 1.47-56). H e does so by inserting two small paragraphs, one describing the veneration of the Jews for their sa­ cred books (1.42-43), and another where he depicts the Greeks as

2 9

T h u s also B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 1 ; L e i m a n 1989, 5 1 - 5 2 , 5 6 . A g a i n s t K a t z 1 9 5 6 , 195; B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 0 ; B e c k w i t h 1 9 8 5 , 3 7 1 - 3 7 2 ; L e i m a n 1989, 5 4 ; F e l d m a n 1990, 3 9 7 - 3 9 8 , a n d in a g r e e m e n t w i t h M e y e r 1974, 2 8 8 , 2 9 0 ; G r e e n s p a h n 1989, 4 0 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 1 2 - 1 6 , 2 5 - 2 6 . J . G . M ü l l e r 1 8 7 1 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 ; v o n G u t s c h m i d t 1 8 9 3 , 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 ; R e i n a c h - B l u m 1 9 3 0 , 10, d o n o t discuss this p r o b l e m . 3 0

104

PER BILDE

opposed to the Jews in this respect (1.44-46). Thus, the main con­ nection is the relation between the Jewish canon and his O w n works. What is open for discussion and interpretation is the important ques­ tion how he himself understood this relationship. T h e very connection between the two sets of literature appears clearly from the general context of CA 1.1-56, where Josephus begins and ends this section by commenting on his own works. It follows that the occasion to comment on the Jewish canon is the actual quarrel on his own writings. T h e line of thinking and writing in CA 1.1-56 may be illustrated as follows: Josephus moves from the controversy on his own works over Greek historiography to the Jewish Bible, and then he jumps back again to the conflict on his own work, now The Jewish War (1.47-56). T h e close connection between Josephus own writings and the Jew­ ish canon also emerges from the logic of the text: T h e opening prob­ lem of CA 1.1-56, as well as of the entire work of Contra Apionem, is the controversy between Josephus and his Greek opponents on The Jewish Antiquities (CA 1.1-2). Immediately, however, Josephus transforms this controversy into a basic conflict between Greece and the Orient ( 1 . 6 - 1 4 / 2 9 ) . In this way, Josephus is made a representative of the Orient and, evidently, of the Jews. T h e Jews are represented by their priestly genealogies (1.30-36) and, in particular, by their sacred books (1.37-41). O n c e again, the Jewish people are opposed to the Greeks (1.42-46). T h e n , the Greeks are claimed generally to be uninterested in first-hand knowledge of historical events (1.45-46), and finally, Josephus sets himself off—as author of The Jewish War—as precisely such a knowledgeable first-hand historian (1.47-56). Accordingly, the main line of thought appears to be that the re­ cent Greek critique of Josephus' work (The Jewish Antiquities) cannot be taken seriously because Greek historiography generally must be regarded as a relatively "modern" phenomenon marked by a funda­ mental lack of interest in written sources as well as by the absence of first-hand knowledge of the events it describes. In contrast, Jose­ phus' work is claimed to represent the much older Oriental civiliza­ tion which has always kept written records—as it appears from the Jewish Bible, in particular. In addition, Josephus is claimed person­ ally to possess extraordinary qualifications as a writer of history both because he is a Jewish priest—with the special training of this class 31

5

31

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , this p r o b l e m is n o t e x a m i n e d in C o h e n

1988.

CONTRA APIONEM

105

1.28-56

regarding written records—(esp. The Jewish Antiquities), and because he is a "practical" historiographer w h o himself has participated in the war that he described, and otherwise has relied on trustworthy eyewitnesses (The Jewish War). From this indirect comparison between Josephus own works and the Jewish Bible arises the all-decisive question: does this comparison imply that Josephus in some way regards himself on a par with the authors of the Jewish holy books, the (priests and the) "prophets"? If we limit ourselves to CA 1.1-56 this question cannot be an­ swered positively without reservations. For here Josephus character­ izes the "prophets" as having obtained their knowledge of history "through the inspiration which they owed to God" (1.37). O n the other hand, Josephus himself is primarily characterized by his "hav­ ing been present in person at all events" (1.47, cf. 55). Nevertheless, one point of connection does exist between the two, for the divine inspiration of the "prophets" is said explicidy to apply only to "the most remote and ancient history" (1.37). As for the events of their own time, the prophets are said to have been "committing to writing a clear account" of these, "just as they occurred" (1.37). A n d this last sentence can safely be interpreted as a parallel to what Josephus says about his own qualifications as a first-hand eyewitness historian (1.47ff.). As for his prerequisites for writing The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus adds an explicit reference to his status of "being a priest and of priestly ancestry" (CA 1.54). By virtue of this qualification he was "well versed in the philosophy of those writings," and, therefore, he was able to produce "a translation of our sacred books." This point emerges even more clearly in Ant. 2 0 . 2 6 4 - 2 6 6 , combined with Jose­ phus autobiography, Life (Vita) (Vit), which is introduced precisely by the paragraphs in Ant. 2 0 . 2 6 4 - 2 6 6 . In Ant. 20.264, Josephus underlines his knowledge of the Jewish "holy scriptures," and he seems to link this knowledge to his "lineage" (20.266). This "lineage" ought to be interpreted as his priestly lineage which he describes in detail in Vit. 1-6. 5

32

33

34

35

5

36

3 2

T h i s distinction h a s also b e e n n o t e d b y G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 1 1 . I n t h e s a m e d i r e c t i o n B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 1 . Similarly G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 5 6 ; M a s o n 1 9 8 8 , 6 5 8 . Cf. a b o v e , p p . 9 6 - 9 7 w i t h n o t e s 1 4 - 1 6 . F o r a m o r e d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n Ant. 2 0 . 2 6 4 - 2 6 6 a n d Vit. 1-6, see Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 1 1 0 - 1 1 3 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 5 6 - 5 8 . 3 3

3 4

3 5

3 6

106

PER BILDE

It might be objected that this reading makes sense in the case of The Jewish Antiquities but that it is less obvious in the case of The Jewish War. This is correct, for in the case of The Jewish War, Josephus is referring primarily to his qualifications as participant in the war (Bell. 1.3; CA 1.47-56). Strangely enough, however, in Bell. 1.3, while presenting himself as the author of his work on the Jewish War, amidst several other information, Josephus again emphasizes his status of Jewish priest: "In these circumstances, I—Josephus, son of Matthias, Hebrew by race, a native of Jerusalem and a priest. . ." Accord­ ingly, in Josephus' own eyes, not only his participation in the war but also his priestly "lineage" is of importance for his work as a historian of the Jewish War, perhaps because this work too, to some extent (1.31-2.167), presupposes written records, and in that sense could be characterized as a "translation" (cf. notes 4 5 - 4 6 with context). However, a closer look at The Jewish War may suggest that Jose­ phus' prerequisites for writing contemporary history include prophetic gifts as well. In the first place, I refer to the famous description in Bell. 3 . 3 4 0 - 4 0 8 of Josephus' surrender i n j o t a p a t a , of his experiences in the cave under the city, and of his prediction to Vespasian to be the future R o m a n emperor. Although the word 7tpo(pf|Tn<; does not appear, this text clearly presents Josephus as a prophet: ". . . but I come to you as a messenger (ayyetax;) of greater destinies . . ." (3.400, cf. 4 0 5 ) . Here, Josephus obviously claims to have functioned as a prophet. However, the crucial question is whether we may be al­ lowed to claim a connection between his performance as a prophet and his role as a writer of history. A hint in this direction may be found in the fact that, in Bell. 3 . 3 5 0 - 3 5 4 , Josephus clearly relates his former (prophetic) "nightly dreams, in which G o d had foretold him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the R o m a n sover­ eigns" (351) with his status as Jewish priest: 37

38

He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books (Bell. 3.352). 39

3 7

F o r v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of this i m p o r t a n t text, see S c h a l i t 1975 c o n t r a M o e h r i n g 1984, a n d f u r t h e r B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 0 - 2 4 7 ; C o h e n 1982, 3 6 9 - 3 7 7 ; S t e r l i n g 1 9 9 2 , 2 3 6 - 2 3 8 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 3 5 - 7 0 ; M a s o n 1994. Cf. M i c h e l 1954; C o h e n 1982, 169. Cf. B l e n k i n s o p p 1974, 2 4 2 , 2 4 7 ; G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 5 7 - 5 8 ; M a s o n 1994, 177. I refer a g a i n t o Bell. 2 . 1 5 9 w h e r e , in his d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Essenes, J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s t h e 3 8

3 9

CONTRA APIONEM

107

1.28-56

Here Josephus himself relates his performance as a prophet with his priestly knowledge of the Jewish scriptures which are elsewhere pre­ sented as a major prerequisite for his office as a writer of history. Another hint in the same direction may be seen in Bell. 1.18: I shall therefore begin my work at the point where the historians of these events and our prophets (o! fiuixepoi rcp09fJTca) conclude . . . In other words, here Josephus seems to present The Jewish War as a direct continuation of the historiography of the Jewish "prophets". By combining these pieces of information in Bell. 1.3.18 and 3 . 3 4 0 408 with the material we have examined in Ant. 2 0 . 2 6 4 - 2 6 6 , Vit. 1-6 and CA 1.1-56, we have established a tenable basis for claiming that Josephus emphasizes the very same three qualifications of priesdy status, prophetic gift and first-hand knowledge, both when he de­ scribes the authors of the Jewish canon, and also w h e n he refers to his own unique qualifications as Jewish historiographer. 40

41

5. Some Implications of the Present Interpretation In CA 1.1-56, Josephus defends his own writings by placing them on a par with the Jewish Bible. In the fundamental conflict between the Jews (the Orient) and the Greeks, he puts his own works in a posi­ tion similar to the Hebrew canon. Further, he describes these two corpora of Jewish literature as marked by the same basic character: being founded on written records and first-hand knowledge. And, finally, Josephus seems to regard his own status as a priest and his

s a m e t w o e l e m e n t s : t h e gift of p r o p h e c y a n d t h e k n o w l e d g e of t h e h o l y s c r i p t u r e s , cf. p p . 9 6 - 9 7 w i t h n o t e s 1 4 - 1 6 . In a g r e e m e n t with Blenkinsopp 1974, 2 4 1 ; D a u b e 1980, 20. F e l d m a n 1990, 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 , claims t h a t , in Bell. 1.18, J o s e p h u s distinguishes clearly b e t w e e n t h e b i b ­ lical p r o p h e t s a n d himself. I n 1990, 3 9 7 , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , F e l d m a n r e m a r k s : " O n e basic r e a s o n for J o s e p h u s ' g r e a t i n t e r e s t in t h e p r o p h e t s is t h a t h e r e g a r d s t h e m as his p r e d e c e s s o r s as h i s t o r i a n s of t h e p a s t " , r e f e r r i n g precisely t o Bell. 1.18 a n d CA 1.37. G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 15, a r g u e s t h a t t h o u g h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r e s e n t e d a b o v e ,is possible, it is b y n o m e a n s c e r t a i n . In the same direction C h e s n u t 1971, 9 1 - 9 2 ; Blenkinsopp 1974, 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 , 247; D a u b e 1980, 2 0 ; A u n e 1982, 4 2 0 - 4 2 1 ; S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 3 8 : " I t is his p r o p h e t i c sta­ tus t h a t allows h i m to w r i t e a definitive h i s t o r y of t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e ; " G r a y 1 9 9 3 , 5 3 - 5 8 ; M a s o n 1988, 6 5 8 - 6 5 9 . 4 0

4 1

108

PER BILDE

prophetic gift as qualifications comparable to those of the ancient Jewish priests and prophets w h o wrote the Jewish sacred books. If this interpretation is true, the result is remarkable—and surpris­ ing. H o w could a first century J e w possibly regard himself and his own work as comparable to the Jewish canon? W e have already referred to the important polemical background, situation and context of Contra Apionem: Josephus regarded The Jewish Antiquities as a "modern" explanation and defence of Judaism, and this very polemical situation may have stimulated his personal iden­ tification with Judaism and the Jewish holy writings. More important, however, is the fact that, in Josephus' own eyes, The Jewish Antiquities was "a translation of our sacred books" (CA 1.54, cf. Ant. 1.5; 20.261). So, in a way, this work was the Jewish Bible, and in this case we need not be surprised by the fact that Josephus puts his Jewish Antiquities on the same footing as the Jewish canon. O n the other hand, it is well known that The Jewish Antiquities is not a literal translation, but a free paraphrase of the Jewish Bible supple­ mented by many other sources. Nonetheless, it is possible to argue that by "translation" Josephus did not understand a literal transfer­ ence, but rather a substantial one which, according to Josephus, rendered the essential content of the Jewish sacred writings. With this interpretation it is easier to understand Josephus' claim that his Jewish Antiquities was a "translation" of the Jewish Bible. This interpretation might help to open our eyes to the possibility that not only Josephus, but a great number of contemporary Jewish authors as well, thought of their works as "translations" or, at least, as renderings in various forms of the Jewish canon and thus, in a way, as identical with the Jewish Bible. This can be said to be the case for The Book of Jubilees. It could, however, also be claimed to be the case for the even freer reinterpretations, rewritings and factual expansions of the Jewish Bible found in a number of the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. In their own eyes, these books, e.g., The First Book of Enoch and The Fourth Book of Ezra, are such "trans­ lations", "explanations" and "interpretations" of the corresponding biblical books or parts of biblical books. And what about the pesharim from Qumran? A n d the Mishnah? 42

43

44

4 2

4 3

4 4

F o r a d e t a i l e d s u r v e y , see Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 8 0 - 8 9 ; S t e r l i n g 1992, 2 5 2 - 2 5 8 . Cf. V e r m e s 1 9 8 2 , 2 9 0 ; Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 9 2 - 9 8 . Cf. V e r m e s 1 9 9 1 , 162, r e f e r r i n g t o V e r m e s 1 9 8 3 .

CONTRA APIONEM

1.28-56

109

Having once seized on this heuristic possibility of interpretation, the way seems open to include even wider circles of contemporary Jewish literary works in this category. It can be argued that Philo and other Hellenistic Jewish writers as well, in their self-understand­ ing, do nothing else than "translate" the Jewish Bible. Finally, is it not possible to maintain that Paul and other early Christian authors, in their writings, meant to do the same thing? Accordingly, it may be argued that, for the Jewish writers in the Hellenistic-Roman period, it was an indisputable point of departure that the religious truth already existed, namely in the Jewish sacred books. T h e actual task remaining for "zealous" Jewish writers was only to understand, interpret and actualize these already given sacred writings. Internally, within the Jewish people, this work was done by the "oral Torah" culminating in the Mishnah and the Talmuds. Externally, vis-a-vis the non-Jewish world, this j o b was done apolo­ getically and polemically in the so-called Hellenistic Jewish literature, first and foremost Philo and Josephus. All of them could claim to do nothing but "translating" the Torah. I think that this situation re­ veals the main reason why Josephus was able to present his writings as belonging basically to the same category as the Jewish Bible. As already suggested above, perhaps this statement might be ac­ cepted as regards The Jewish Antiquities, but what about The Jewish War? Life and Contra Apionem are not as relevant in this respect since Josephus himself does regard these two works as supplementary, auxiliary writings the purpose of which was to defend and explain his two major works. Obviously, The Jewish War can by no means be regarded as a "translation" of the Hebrew Bible and, in fact, Josephus himself never does so. His first major work is a piece of Hellenistic-Roman histo­ riography which Josephus himself compares direcdy with those of Herodotus, Thucydides and others. It is no "translation" (apart from the fact that Josephus himself translated it from an original in Ara­ maic, cf. Bell 1.3). It is a description of important contemporary events based on first-hand knowledge (cf. Bell 1.3; CA 1 . 4 7 - 5 0 / 5 6 ) , so how could Josephus possibly regard this work as comparable to the Jewish Bible? 45

46

4 5

Cf. esp. Bell 1.1-3, 1 3 - 1 6 ; CA 1 . 1 5 - 1 8 ; cf. Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 192. A n d a p a r t from w h a t h a s b e e n said a b o v e ( p p . 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ) o n t h e c h a r a c t e r of Bell. 1.31-2.166. 4 6

110

PER BILDE

First, Josephus apparently did so, precisely because of this work's very character of first-hand knowledge. It will be remembered that, for Josephus, a decisive aspect of the sacred Jewish books was their being based on written records. Another aspect of the Jewish Bible was, according to Josephus, that the prophets wrote "a clear ac­ count of the events of their own time just as they occurred" (CA 1.37). But this is precisely what Josephus claimed to have done in his Jewish War. Second, the history of the Jewish people continued after the dis­ appearance of the classical prophets at the time of Artaxerxes, as Josephus himself underlines in CA 1.41. It also continued to be de­ scribed by Jewish historical writers such as the authors of The Letter of Aristeas and the First Book of Maccabees, which Josephus himself used as sources for his works. Further, to Josephus, the war between the Jews in Palestine and R o m e ( 6 6 - 7 0 / 7 4 CE) was not less significant than the great events in the Hebrew Bible, but rather "the greatest not only of the wars of our own time, but, so far as accounts have reached us, well nigh of all that ever broke out between cities or nations" (Bell. 1.1), a disaster that had its origin in "civil strife" (axdaiq oiKe(a) and in the crucial events under King Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Jewish history continued, and so did Jewish historiography. Third, as we have seen, Josephus regarded himself as presented with the divine gift of prophecy. O n the basis of Bell. 1.18; 3 . 3 5 0 354 and CA 1.41 it is possible to suggest that Josephus regarded his status as prophet to be a necessary prerequisite for his writing of history, not only of the biblical period, but of contemporary events as well. Accordingly, although Josephus never explicitly identified The Jew­ ish War as a sort of "canonical" work in the way he did understand his Jewish Antiquities, he also seems to have regarded his first major work as comparable to the "prophetic" historical writings and on a par with such earlier "postprophetical" works as The Letter of Aristeas and The First Book of Maccabees. 47

48

47

Bell. 1.9-12 (esp. 1.10), 1 9 - 2 0 , 31ff. O n J o s e p h u s ' view of t h e causes of t h e J e w i s h W a r , see Bilde 1979. Bell. 1.18, cf. a b o v e , p . 109. 4 8

CONTRA APIONEM

111

1.28-56

Conclusion Contra Apionem is the latest of Josephus' works. Therefore, it is pos­ sible to argue that this work is critically important in the sense that it can be claimed to provide a key to Josephus' own final under­ standing of all his other writings. O f course, this interpretation is not logically compelling. T h e Laqueur school has interpreted Contra Apionem, together with The Jewish Antiquities and Life, as representing a completely different point of view from that of the earlier work, The Jewish War. O n this assumption it would obviously be a mistake to interpret the earlier work on the basis of the later works. Indeed, attempts have been made to refute this view of the Laqueur school, but these attempts have not yet w o n international approval. Conse­ quently, the position taken in this essay can claim nothing but the status of a hypothesis. Accordingly, I conclude by asking the following question: is it not possible—and fruitful—to use Contra Apionem as an aid to understanding the other works? At all events, the view of Josephus' two major works found in CA 1.1-2 and 4 7 - 5 6 is in accordance with the descriptions of these works found elsewhere in his writings. The Jewish Antiquities is meant as a "translation" of the sacred Jewish scriptures, and The Jewish War is claimed to be a piece of "modern" Hellenistic-Roman historiography based on first-hand knowledge. Further, not only in CA 1.1-56 but also elsewhere in his works, Josephus understands his status as a Jewish priest, with primary knowledge of the Jewish holy texts, as well as his capacity as a divinely gifted prophet to be fun­ damental prerequisites for his historiographical work. Finally, it is not Josephus' attempts to apologize and defend him­ self in the eyes of R o m e or in the eyes of the new powerful Jewish elite, the Pharisaic Rabbis in Jamnia, that fundamentally character­ izes Contra Apionem. Rather, it is his defence of the Jewish people and his wish to picture Judaism as a major religious and cultural force in the Hellenistic and R o m a n world. Josephus presents the Jewish sa­ cred books in the interpretation of his own writings as a genuine alternative to Greek culture and historiography. 49

50

51

4 9

5 0

5 1

T h u s Bilde 1988, 1 2 1 . Cf. Bilde 1988, 1 2 8 - 1 4 1 . Cf. v a n U n n i k 1979; V e r m e s 1982, 3 0 1 - 3 0 2 ; Bilde 1 9 8 8 , 1 2 0 - 1 2 2 .

112

PER BILDE

Bibliography A t t r i d g e , H . W . : The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, M i s s o u l a 1976. : " J o s e p h u s a n d his W o r k s , " in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, CRINT, S e c t i o n T w o , e d . M . S t o n e , Assen a n d P h i l a d e l p h i a 1984, 1 8 5 - 2 3 2 . A u n e , D . E.: " T h e U s e of PROPHETES in J o s e p h u s , " JBL, 1 0 1 , 1982, 4 1 9 - 4 2 1 . B e c k w i t h , R . : The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism, L o n d o n 1 9 8 5 . Begg, C h . T . : " T h e 'Classical P r o p h e t s ' in J o s e p h u s ' Antiquities" Louvain Studies, 13, 1988, 3 4 1 - 3 5 7 . Bilde, P.: " T h e C a u s e s of t h e J e w i s h W a r A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , " JSJ, 10, 1979, 179-202. : Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, his Works, and their Importance, Sheffield 1 9 8 8 . B l e n k i n s o p p , J . : " P r o p h e c y a n d P r i e s t h o o d in J o s e p h u s , " JJS, 2 5 , 1974, 2 3 9 - 2 6 2 . Bloch, H . : Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archäologie, Leipzig 1879, rp. W i e s b a d e n 1968. Bousset, W . u n d H . G r e s s m a n n : Die Religion des Judentums im Späthellenistischen Zeitalter, T ü b i n g e n (3. Aufl.) 1 9 2 7 , r p . 1966. B r a u n , H . : " T h e P r o p h e t W h o B e c a m e a H i s t o r i a n , " The Listener, 5 6 , 1956, 5 3 - 5 7 . C h e s n u t , G . F . J r . : The Byzantine Church Historians from Eusebius to Evagrius. A Historiographical Study ( u n p u b l . diss., O x f o r d 1971). C h r i s t e n s e n , D . : ' J o s e p h u s a n d t h e T w e n t y - T w o - B o o k C a n o n of S a c r e d S c r i p t u r e s , " Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2 9 , 1 9 8 6 , 2 5 - 3 6 . C o h e n , S. J . D . : Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian, L e i d e n 1979. : " J o s e p h u s , J e r e m i a h , a n d P o l y b i u s , " History and Theory, 2 1 , 1982, 3 6 6 - 3 8 1 . : " H i s t o r y a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y in t h e Contra Apionem of J o s e p h u s , " History and Theory, 2 7 , 1 9 8 8 , 1 - 1 1 . D a u b e , D . : ' " I b e l i e v e ' i n Jewish Antiquities, X I , 2 3 7 , " JJS, 2 7 , 1976, 1 4 2 - 1 4 6 . : " T y p o l o g y in J o s e p h u s , " JJS, 3 1 , 1980, 1 8 - 3 6 (= " T y p o l o g i e i m W e r k e des Flavius J o s e p h u s , " Freiburger Rundbriefe, 3 1 , 1979, 5 9 - 6 9 ) . D e l l i n g , G . : " D i e biblische P r o p h e t i e b e i J o s e p h u s , " in: O . B e t z , K . H a a c k e r u n d M . H e n g e l (eds.,): Josephus-Studien (FS O t t o M i c h e l ) , G ö t t i n g e n 1974, 1 0 9 - 1 2 1 . D r ü n e r , H . : Untersuchungen über Josephus, M a r b u r g 1896. F a r m e r , W . R . : Maccabees, ^ealots, and Josephus. An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period, N e w Y o r k 1956, r p . W e s t p o r t 1 9 7 3 . F e l d m a n , L . H . : " H e l l e n i z a t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' V e r s i o n of E s t h e r , " TAPAPA, 1 0 1 , 1970, 1 4 3 - 1 7 0 . : " F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s Revisited: T h e M a n , his W r i t i n g s , a n d his Significance," ANRW, 11,21.2, 1984, 7 6 3 - 8 6 2 . : " P r o p h e t s a n d P r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s , " JThSt, 4 1 , 1990, 3 8 6 - 4 2 2 . : " J o s e p h u s , " The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 , 1992, 9 8 1 - 9 9 8 (1992a). : " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of J o s e p h , " RB, 9 9 , 1992, 3 7 9 - 4 1 7 , 5 0 4 - 5 2 8 (1992b). : " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of D a n i e l , " Henoch, 14, 1992, 3 7 - 9 4 / 9 6 (1992c). Fell, W . : " D e r B i b e l k a n o n d e s Flavius J o s e p h u s , " £ £ , 7, 1909, 1-16, 1 1 3 - 1 2 2 , 2 3 5 244. G r a y , R.: Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The Evidence from Josephus, N e w York-Oxford 1993. G r e e n s p a h n , F . E.: " W h y P r o p h e c y C e a s e d , " JBL, 108, 1989, 3 7 - 4 9 . G u t s c h m i d t , A . v o n : Vorlesungen über Josephos' Bücher gegen Apion, Kleine Schriften, ed. F . R ü h l , I - V , L e i p z i g 1 8 8 9 - 1 8 9 4 , vol. I V , 1 8 9 3 , 3 3 6 - 5 8 9 . H a d a s - L e b e l , M . : Flavius Josephe. Le Juif de Rome, P a r i s 1989.

CONTRA APIONEM

1.28-56

113

H ö l s c h e r , G.: " J o s e p h u s , " P-WRE, I X , 1916, 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 . K a s h e r , A.: < C o m m e n t a r y o n Contra Apionem>. F o r t h c o m i n g . K a t z , P.: " T h e O l d T e s t a m e n t C a n o n in Palestine a n d A l e x a n d r i a , " <J/VTV, 4 7 , 1956, 191-217. L a q u e u r , R.: Der jüdischer Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biografischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage, G i e s s e n 1920, r p . D a r m s t a d t 1970. L e i m a n , S. Z.: " J o s e p h u s a n d t h e C a n o n of t h e B i b l e , " in: L. H . F e l d m a n a n d G . H a t a (eds.): Josephus, the Bible, and History, L e i d e n 1 9 8 9 , 5 0 - 5 8 . L i n d n e r , H . : Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum. Gleichzeitig ein Bätrag zur Quellenfrage, L e i d e n 1972. M a s o n , S. N . : " P r i e s t h o o d in J o s e p h u s a n d t h e ' P h a r i s a i c R e v o l u t i o n ' , " JBL, 107, 1988, 6 5 7 - 6 6 1 . : " J o s e p h u s , D a n i e l , a n d t h e F l a v i a n H o u s e , " in: F . P a r e n t e a n d J . Sievers (eds.): Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, L e i d e n 1994, 1 6 1 - 1 9 1 . M a y e r , R . a n d C . Möller: ' J o s e p h u s — P o l i t i k e r u n d P r o p h e t , " in: O . Betz, K . H a a c k e r u n d M . H e n g e l (eds.): Josephus-Studien (FS O t t o M i c h e l ) , G ö t t i n g e n 1974, 2 7 3 284. M e y e r , R.: Der Prophet aus Galiläa. Studie zum Jesusbild der drei Ersten Evangelien, L e i p z i g 1940, r p . D a r m s t a d t 1970. : " P r o p h e t e n t u m u n d P r o p h e t e n i m J u d e n t u m d e r hellenistisch-römischen Z e i t , " ThWNT, 6, 1959, 8 1 3 - 8 2 8 . : "Bemerkungen z u m literargeschichtlichen H i n t e r g r u n d der K a n o n t h e o r i e des J o s e p h u s , " in: O . Betz, K . H a a c k e r u n d M . H e n g e l (eds.): Josephus-Studien, G ö t t i n g e n 1974, 2 8 5 - 2 9 9 . M i c h e l , O . : " S p ä t j ü d i s c h e s P r o p h e t e n t u m , " in: Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bult­ mann, Berlin 1954, 6 0 - 6 6 . : " ' I c h k o m m e ' ( J o s . Bell. I I I , 4 0 0 ) , " ThZ 2 4 , 1 9 6 8 , 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 . : "Studien zu J o s e p h u s . Apokalyptische Heilsansagen im Bericht des J o s e p h u s (Bell. 6.290f, 2 9 3 - 2 9 5 ) ; i h r e U m d e u t u n g bei J o s e p h u s , " in: Neotestamentica et Semiüca, F S M . Black, E d i n b u r g h 1969, 2 4 0 - 2 4 4 . : " D i e R e t t u n g Israels u n d die R o l l e R o m s n a c h d e n R e d e n i m ' B e l l u m J u d a i ­ c u m ' . A n a l y s e n u n d P e r s p e k t i v e n , " ANRW, I I , 2 1 . 2 , 1984, 9 4 5 - 9 7 6 . M o e h r i n g , H . R.: " J o s e p h b e n M a t t h i a a n d Flavius J o s e p h u s : t h e J e w i s h P r o p h e t a n d R o m a n H i s t o r i a n , " ANRW, I I , 2 1 . 2 , 1984, 8 6 4 - 9 4 4 . M o n t g o m e r y , J . A.: " T h e R e l i g i o n of Flavius J o s e p h u s , " JQR, 1 1 , 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 1 , 2 7 7 305. M ü l l e r , J . G.: Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen Apion. Text und Erklärung, Basel 1 8 7 7 , r p . H i l d e s h e i m 1969. M ü l l e r , K . : " ' D i e P r o p h e t e n sind Schlafen g e g a n g e n ' (Syr B a r 8 5 . 3 ) , " 26, 1982, 179-207. Niese, B.: " D e r j ü d i s c h e H i s t o r i k e r J o s e p h u s , " HZ (NF), 4 0 , 1896, 1 9 3 - 2 3 7 . P o z n a n s k i , A.: Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus, H a l l e 1887. Rajak, T . : Josephus. The Historian and His Society, L o n d o n a n d P h i l a d e l p h i a 1 9 8 3 . Reiling, J . : " T h e U s e of PSEUDOPROPHETES in t h e S e p t u a g i n t , P h i l o , a n d J o s e ­ p h u s , " NovT, 13, 1 9 7 1 , 1 4 7 - 1 5 6 . R e i n a c h , T h . et L. B l u m : Flavius Josephe Contre Apion, P a r i s 1930. S c h ä u b l e i n , P.: " J o s e p h u s u n d die G r i e c h e n , " Hermes, 110, 1 9 8 2 , 3 1 6 - 3 4 1 . S c h a l k , A.: " D i e E r h e b u n g V e s p a s i a n s n a c h Flavius J o s e p h u s , T a l m u d u n d M i d r a s h . Z u r G e s c h i c h t e e i n e r m e s s i a n i s c h e n P r o p h e t i e , " ANRW, I I , 2 , 1 9 7 5 , 2 0 8 - 3 2 7 . S c h w a r t z , S.: Josephus and Judaean Politics, L e i d e n 1990. S h u t t , R . J . H . : Studies in Josephus, L o n d o n 1 9 6 1 . Sterling, G . E.: Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Histo­ riography, L e i d e n 1992.

114

PER BILDE

T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . (ed.): Josephus with an English Translation. . ., vol. I: The Life. Contra Apionem, The Loeb Classical Library, L o n d o n - C a m b r i d g e M A 1926, r p . 1966. T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . et alii (ed.): Josephus with an English Translation ..., vol. I - I X , The Loeb Classical Library, C a m b r i d g e M A a n d L o n d o n 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 6 5 ) . T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . : Josephus the Man and the Historian, N e w Y o r k 1929, r p . N e w York 1967. T r o i a n i , L.: Commento storico al "Contro Apione" di Giuseppe, Pisa 1977. U n n i k , W . C . v a n : Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller, H e i d e l b e r g 1978. : " F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s a n d t h e M y s t e r i e s , " in: M . J . V e r m a s e r e n (ed.): Studies in Hellenistic Religions, L e i d e n 1979, 2 4 4 - 2 7 9 . V e r m e s , G . : " A S u m m a r y of t h e L a w b y Flavius J o s e p h u s , " NovT, 2 4 , 1982, 2 8 9 303. : Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, L o n d o n 1 9 8 3 . : " J o s e p h u s ' T r e a t m e n t of t h e B o o k of D a n i e l , " JJS, 4 2 , 1 9 9 1 , 1 4 9 - 1 6 6 . W e b e r , W . : Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem Jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus, Berlin, S t u t t g a r t u n d Berlin 1 9 2 1 , r p . H i l d e s h e i m 1 9 7 3 .

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS A N D BARBARIANS ARTHUR J.

DROGE

University of Chicago

The curious thing about the Contra Apionem is that it exists at all. Even a casual reading leaves the impression of its being so unlike anything else to survive among the remains of ancient Jewish litera­ ture. It is the only clear and unambiguous apologia for Judaism written in Greek. Indeed, the character of the argument and its vocabulary of vituperation give the work an almost Christian ambiance. As is well known there is no trace of Josephus' name or writings in Jewish literature before the Middle Ages; it was to the Christians that he owed his survival. They valued him as a chronographer, a collector of ancient sources, an historian and historical critic, but above all as an apologist. Paradoxically, the Contra Apionem could have been the archetypal early Christian apology. The origins of the Contra Apionem are steeped in literary conflict. Sometime after the publication of the Jewish Antiquities (c. 9 3 / 4 CE), Josephus was forced to defend his magnum opus against "a 1

1

CA 2 . 1 4 7 : " M y object is n o t to c o m p o s e a p a n e g y r i c u p o n o u r p e o p l e ; b u t I c o n s i d e r t h a t , in reply to t h e n u m e r o u s false a c c u s a t i o n s w h i c h a r e b r o u g h t a g a i n s t us, t h e fairest defense [anoXoyia 8iKaioTaxr|] w h i c h I c a n give is t o b e f o u n d in t h e laws w h i c h g o v e r n o u r daily lives." T h e r e c o n t i n u e s to b e considerable d e b a t e w h e t h e r n o t j u s t t h e Contra Apionem b u t Hellenistic-Jewish l i t e r a t u r e in g e n e r a l w a s " a p o l o ­ g e t i c " a n d i n t e n d e d for a p a g a n r a t h e r t h a n a J e w i s h a u d i e n c e . P r i o r t o V i c t o r T c h e r i k o v e r ' s i m p o r t a n t article, "Jewish A p o l o g e t i c L i t e r a t u r e R e c o n s i d e r e d , " Eos 4 8 (1956), p p . 1 6 9 - 9 3 , t h e c o n s e n s u s w a s t h a t this l i t e r a t u r e w a s d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y t o "gentiles," often w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n of m a k i n g c o n v e r t s . I a m in g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h T c h e r i k o v e r ' s criticism of t h e d o m i n a n t view a n d its c r y p t o - t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r ­ p i n n i n g s (namely, t h a t Hellenistic J u d a i s m , in c o n t r a s t t o P a l e s t i n i a n J u d a i s m , r e p ­ r e s e n t e d a t r a n s i t i o n a l stage in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t from "biblical J u d a i s m " t o C h r i s ­ tianity). T c h e r i k o v e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n - J e w i s h l i t e r a t u r e " w a s d i r e c t e d i n w a r d s n o t o u t w a r d s , " b u t t h e situation s e e m s m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n his a l t e r n a t i v e allows. I n a n y case T c h e r i k o v e r is careful t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t his c o n c l u s i o n d o e s not a p p l y to J o s e p h u s : " I n c o n t r a s t w i t h A l e x a n d r i a n writers J o s e p h u s is a typical a p o l o ' getic w r i t e r w h o sees in t h e d e f e n c e of J u d a i s m his m a i n task. H e e v e n e m p h a s i z e s explicidy t h a t h e w r o t e his b o o k s for t h e G e n t i l e s [cf. Ant. 1 6 . 1 7 4 - 7 8 ] . H e , w h o w a s t h e official h i s t o r i a n of t h e F l a v i a n e m p e r o r s , c o u l d b e sure b e f o r e h a n d t h a t t h e circle of his r e a d e r s w o u l d i n c l u d e also t h e G e n t i l e s , for t h e single r e a s o n t h a t t h e a u t h o r w a s u n d e r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e E m p e r o r s " ( p . 183 n. 32).

116

ARTHUR J. DROGE

considerable number" of detractors: Greek readers, presumably, though he nowhere mentions them by name. Josephus responded in two volumes "Contra Apionem" a tide that appears to have originated with Jerome, not Josephus, and in any case is rather misleading. Apion was a native Egyptian w h o lived in the first half of the first century CE. H e could not have known the Antiquities and therefore could not have been part of Josephus immediate group of critics. In fact, Apion receives surprisingly litde attention in the Contra Apionem. Origen and Eusebius referred to Josephus tract under the title, On the Antiquity of the Jews; the Neoplatonist Porphyry knew it as To (or Against) the Greeks.* T h e variety of titles reveals something of the uncertainties of the work itself, and these have to do not only with why it was written and against w h o m , but also with its defensive strategy, the model of cultural comparison on which it was based, and above all its repre­ sentation of Judaism. In the preface to the Contra Apionem Josephus states his opponents accusation: the Jews, they claim, are a v e c o x e p o v y e v o q , "a people of recent origin. Their criticism was based on the fact that the best known Greek historians had failed to mention the Jews, the implication being that the Jews had played no role worth mentioning in the history of civilization. But Josephus preface is a much more compli­ cated piece of work than appears at first glance. It deserves full citation. 2

5

5

3

5

555

5

(1) I n m y a n c i e n t history [sc. Jewish Antiquities], m o s t excellent E p a p h r o d i t u s , I h a v e , I think, m a d e sufficiently clear to those w h o m a y r e a d t h a t w o r k t h e e x t r e m e antiquity of o u r J e w i s h nation, the u n i q u e ­ ness of its original f o u n d a t i o n , a n d t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h it established itself in t h e c o u n t r y w h i c h we o c c u p y today. T h a t history e m b r a c e s a p e r i o d of five t h o u s a n d years, a n d was written b y m e in G r e e k o n the basis of o u r sacred books. (2) B u t since I observe t h a t a considerable n u m b e r of p e r s o n s , influenced b y the malicious blasphemies of certain individuals, disbelieve t h e s t a t e m e n t s in m y history c o n c e r n i n g o u r antiquity, a n d a d d u c e as p r o o f of the r e c e n t origin of o u r people the

2

J e r o m e , Ep. 7 0 . 3 ; De vir. ill. 13; Adv. Iov. 2 . 1 4 . O r i g e n , C. Cels. 1.16; 4 . 1 1 ; E u s e b i u s , H.E. 3.9.4; RE. 8 . 7 . 2 1 ; 10.6.15. De abst. 4 . 1 1 . J e r o m e t r a n s c r i b e s this p a s s a g e f r o m P o r p h y r y , b u t substitutes for P o r p h y r y ' s title t h e o n e t h a t h a s n o w b e c o m e c u r r e n t (Adv. Iov. 2.14). T h e t e r m vecbxepcx; c a n also b e a r t h e m e a n i n g " s t r a n g e " o r " u n u s u a l . " T h e p l u r a l , xa vecbxepa o r xa vewxepa rcpaynaxa, d e n o t e s " r e b e l l i o n " o r "violent r e v o l u t i o n " (cf. t h e L a t i n res novae). F r o m t h e w a y in w h i c h J o s e p h u s r e s p o n d s , it a p p e a r s t h a t his critics e m p l o y e d t h e t e r m in a t e m p o r a l sense, b u t its o t h e r associations c a n n o t b e r u l e d o u t . A p i o n , for e x a m p l e , h a d a c c u s e d t h e J e w s of A l e x a n d r i a of sedition (CA 2.68). 3

4

5

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

117

fact that it has not been thought worthy of mention by the best known Greek historians, (3) I consider it my duty to devote a brief treatise to all these points; in order at once to convict our detractors of malignity and deliberate falsehoods, to correct the ignorance of others, and to instruct all who desire to know the truth concerning our antiquity. (4) As witnesses to my statements I propose to call the writers who, in the estimation of the Greeks, are the most trustworthy authorities on an­ tiquity as a whole. The authors of blasphemous and false statements about us will be shown to be confuted by themselves. (5) I shall further endeavor to set out the various reasons which explain why our people are mentioned by a few only of the Greek historians; at the same time I shall bring those authors who have not neglected our history to the notice of any who either are, or feign to be, ignorant of them (1.1-5). The preface fails to make clear just w h o Josephus' detractors are. We may assume that they are Greeks insofar as they consider mention by the best known Greek historians to be the sine qua non of historical importance. O n several occasions in the treatise Josephus states that his opponents do not trust "barbarian" histories, only those of the Greeks. A little further on Josephus mentions "certain despicable persons [who] have tried to malign my history" (1.53). In this case, however, he is referring to attacks on his earlier work, the Jewish War. It remains unclear who these critics are (though again they appear to be Greeks), but it seems unlikely that they can be linked with those who attacked the Antiquities. T h e present statement comes in a brief digression (1.47-56) in which Josephus defends the historical veracity of the War, a topic which is otherwise absent in the Contra Apionem. It would appear that Josephus stirred as much controversy as an author as he did in his public career. Why Josephus failed to identify the critics of his Jewish Antiquities with greater precision remains a mystery. Perhaps by not naming them he hoped to avoid calling unnecessary attention to their works. Perhaps they are no more than a convenient fiction to justify the Contra Apionem. In any case his preface takes aim not only at the 6

1

2,

6

CA 1.6, 15, 1 6 1 ; cf. Ant. 14.187. J o s e p h u s ' p r e f a t o r y r e m a r k in CA 1.4, t h a t his defense will b e b a s e d o n " t h e writers w h o , in t h e e s t i m a t i o n of t h e G r e e k s , a r e t h e m o s t t r u s t w o r t h y a u t h o r i t i e s o n a n t i q u i t y as a w h o l e , " w o u l d s e e m t o suggest t h e use of Greek writers. I n fact, his a r g u m e n t rests m u c h m o r e o n t h e e v i d e n c e of " b a r b a r i a n " historians like t h e E g y p t i a n M a n e t h o . B u t m o r e o n this later. T h e J e w i s h h i s t o r i a n J u s t u s of T i b e r i a s w r o t e a rival a c c o u n t of t h e g r e a t a n t i R o m a n revolt of 6 6 - 7 3 C E in w h i c h J o s e p h u s w a s r o u n d l y criticized (Vita 3 3 6 - 6 7 ) , b u t t h a t is n o t w h o is in view h e r e . J o s e p h u s is a l l u d i n g t o Greek w r i t e r s . D i d a " c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r " of G r e e k s take t h e t i m e to r e a d all t w e n t y b o o k s 7

8

118

ARTHUR J. DROGE

Greeks but also at "certain individuals" who Josephus believes influenced them by their "malicious blasphemies" against the Jews. With this assertion another group of opponents comes into view, and this time Josephus is willing to name names. At the conclusion of the first book of the Contra Apionem we hear of the so-called anti-Exodus accounts of Manetho, Chaeremon, and Lysimachus (1.219-320). All three described the departure of the Jews from Egypt as the expulsion of a diseased or contaminated people. T h e second book opens with Josephus announcing, "I shall now proceed to refute the rest of the authors w h o have attacked us:" Apollonius Molon and Josephus' bête noire, Apion of Alexandria (2.2). T h e latter's attack on Judaism centered on three issues: the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt, an indictment of the Jews of Alexandria, and a denunciation of their temple cult and religious practices. With the exception of Apollonius, all were native Egyptians w h o wrote in Greek. In contrast to the contemporary Greek critics of the Antiquities, none of these earlier writers seems to have been concerned to argue explicitly that the Jews were a vecbxepov y é v o ç . T h e only evidence for 9

10

of t h e Jewish Antiquities? A n d e v e n if t h e y did, w h e r e in t h e w o r k a r e " t h e s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g o u r a n t i q u i t y " w h i c h a G r e e k r e a d e r could " d i s b e l i e v e ? " D e s p i t e t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l notices in t h e p r e f a c e to t h e Antiquities (1.13, 16), I c a n find only a h a n d f u l of clear affirmations of t h e a n t i q u i t y of t h e J e w s in t h e w o r k as a w h o l e (1.82; 8 . 6 1 ; 1 0 . 1 4 8 ; 16.44; 20.230). A G r e e k r e a d e r of t h e Antiquities m i g h t well d i s p u t e J o s e p h u s ' description of J e w i s h origins, b u t h e w o u l d n o t h a v e q u e s t i o n e d t h e a n t i q u i t y of t h e J e w s . O n these w r i t e r s , see M . S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2 vols. ( J e r u s a l e m : T h e Israel A c a d e m y of Sciences a n d H u m a n i t i e s , 1 9 7 6 - 8 0 ) , vol. 1, p p . 6 2 - 8 6 ( M a n e t h o ) , 1 4 8 - 5 6 (Apollonius M o l o n ) , 3 8 2 - 8 8 (Lysimachus), 3 8 9 - 4 1 6 (Apion), 4 1 7 - 2 1 ( C h a e r e m o n ) . T h e only i n f o r m a t i o n b e a r i n g o n this is J o s e p h u s ' r e c o r d of t h e i r d a t i n g of t h e E x o d u s in CA 2 . 1 5 - 1 7 . M a n e t h o : 3 9 3 y e a r s before t h e flight of D a n a u s to A r g o s (cf. 1.103); L y s i m a c h u s : 1700 y e a r s a g o , in t h e reign of king B o c c h o r i s (cf. 1.305); A p i o n : in t h e first y e a r of t h e s e v e n t h O l y m p i a d (i.e., 7 5 2 B C E ) , a d a t e (incorrectly) sync h r o n i z e d w i t h t h e f o u n d a t i o n of C a r t h a g e ; A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n a n d o t h e r s "fix a d a t e to suit t h e m s e l v e s . " T h i s is t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e t h a t A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n discussed t h e E x o d u s ; w h o t h e " o t h e r s " a r e is n o t clear. J o s e p h u s h a s fudged L y s i m a c h u s ' d a t e b y confusing t h e B o c c h o r i s of t h e e i g h t h c e n t u r y B C E w i t h o n e a b o u t a t h o u s a n d y e a r s earlier. It a p p e a r s t h a t L y s i m a c h u s a n d A p i o n s u p p l i e d r o u g h l y t h e s a m e e i g h t h - c e n t u r y d a t e for t h e E x o d u s . I say " a p p e a r s " b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s a n o t h e r side to A p i o n ' s d a t i n g of M o s e s of w h i c h J o s e p h u s s e e m s u n a w a r e . Following P t o l e m y of M e n d e s , A p i o n is r e p o r t e d t o h a v e s y n c h r o n i z e d M o s e s w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n p h a r a o h A m o s i s a n d t h e first A r g i v e k i n g I n a c h u s , i.e., c. 1700 B C E (see FGrHist 6 1 6 F 2 a - c ; cf. F 4 a - c ; a n d B. Z . W a c h o l d e r , "Biblical C h r o n o l o g y in t h e Hellenistic W o r l d C h r o n i c l e s , " Harvard Theological Review 61 [ 1 9 6 8 ] , p p . 4 5 1 - 8 1 , esp. p p . 4 7 7 81). B u t n o t e v e n A p i o n ' s l a t e r d a t i n g of t h e e x o d u s is t a n t a m o u n t to a c h a r g e of " r e c e n t n e s s . " After all, h e c o o r d i n a t e d t h e e x o d u s w i t h t h e f o u n d i n g of C a r t h a g e ; 9

10

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

119

a connection between these two groups of opponents is Josephus' assertion that the former was influenced by the latter. Whether or not this was the case is perhaps beyond our grasp. W e know that the Roman historian Tacitus was influenced by the "malicious blas­ phemies" of Alexandrian writers (especially Lysimachus) and that he dated the Exodus (as did Apion) to the eighth century BCE. But Tacitus never questioned the antiquity of the Jews: "Whatever their origin," he wrote, "these rites [i.e., dietary laws, fasts, sabbath observ­ ance, etc.] are maintained by their antiquity." What is clear is that Josephus saw himself as fighting on two, and in his opinion, related fronts in the Contra Apionem. What begins as a response to the criti­ cism of contemporary Greek readers of the Antiquities eventually be­ comes a defense against a coterie of earlier Alexandrian writers w h o had attacked Moses and the Jews. Josephus begins his apology by turning the tables on his Greek critics. In response to their charge of "recent origin" Josephus asserts that it is Greek culture which "will be found to be new and dating, so to speak, from yesterday or the day before: I refer to the foundation of their cities, the invention of the arts and technology, and the codification of laws. Perhaps most recent of all is their concern for history writing" (1.7). T h e best defense is a good offense. Yet this is more than wishful thinking on Josephus' part; it is a clear allusion to Plato's discussion of the history of culture in the third book of the Laws. There Clinias, one of the speakers in the dialogue, makes the observation that Greek civilization is of relatively recent origin. As proof Clinias states that the various arts and sciences "were unknown to the men of [ancient times] for thousands upon thousands of years, and that one or two thousand years ago some of them were revealed to Daedelus, some to Orpheus, some to Palamedes, musical arts to Marsyas and Olympus, lyric to Amphion, and, in short, to a vast number of other persons: all dating, so to speak, from yesterday or the day before" (Laws 6 7 7 d ) . Josephus makes use of the same 11

12

n o small claim. A n d n o t e J o s e p h u s ' r e m a r k in CA 2 . 1 5 6 : " O u r lawgiver, w h o lived in t h e r e m o t e s t p a s t (that, I presume, is admitted even by our most unscrupulous detractors), p r o v e d himself t h e p e o p l e ' s best g u i d e a n d c o u n s e l o r . " S u r e l y h e i n c l u d e d A p i o n in this g r o u p of " u n s c r u p u l o u s d e t r a c t o r s . " Hist. 5 . 5 . 1 : Hi ritus quoquo modo inducti antiquitate defenduntur. T e x t a n d c o m m e n ­ t a r y in S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, vol. 2, p p . 1 7 - 6 3 . S o m e h a v e e v e n s p e c u l a t e d t h a t T a c i t u s k n e w J o s e p h u s ' w o r k s (see S t e r n , p . 3 n . 3). S o far as I k n o w , p a g a n s u n a n i m o u s l y c o n c e d e d t h e a n t i q u i t y of M o s e s a n d t h e Jew's. Cf. H e r o d o t u s ' similar j u d g m e n t in t h e field of t h e h i s t o r y of religion: " B u t 11

12

120

ARTHUR J.

DROGE

expression in regard to Pythagoras (2.14) and the lawgivers Lycurgus, Solon, and Zaleucus (2.154); in fact, "all who are held in such high esteem by the Greeks appear to have been born but yesterday or the day before" (2.154). In comparison with Jewish history, which Josephus claims dates back some five thousand years, Greek civilization cut a rather poor figure ( l . l ) . That the Greeks were relative newcomers in comparison to the more venerable barbarian nations (especially Egypt) was a fact admit­ ted by the Greeks themselves. Herodotus had described the encoun­ ter between Hecataeus of Miletus and the Egyptian priests of Thebes as a contest between two civilizations of different antiquity. Hecataeus' sixteen generations of ancestors simply could not compete with the Egyptian priest w h o could trace his ancestors back through 345 gen­ erations (Histories 2.143). Plato reported a similar meeting between the Athenian lawgiver Solon and the Egyptian priests of Sai's. In a debate with them about archaic history (rcepi TCDV dp%aicov), Solon "discovered that neither he himself nor any other Greek knew any­ thing at all about such matters." As one Egyptian priest solemnly pointed out to him, "Solon, there is no such thing as an old Greek, for you possess not a single belief that is ancient and derived from old tradition, nor even one science that is time-honored" (Timaeus 22ac). In the Hellenistic period the same point would be made again and again by native writers w h o had learned to compose history in Greek fashion. That some of the most illustrious Greeks were themselves prepared to admit the relative lateness of their own civilization was crucial for Josephus' apologetic strategy. For one thing, it allowed him to qualify the value of Greek historical writing when it came to the distant past. For another, it provided a chronological basis for establishing the dependency of the Greeks on the Jews, a theme that will come to the fore in the second book. Josephus is quick to point out that the Greeks came to the study of history rather late in the game: only a short time before the Per13

w h e n c e e a c h of t h e g o d s c a m e i n t o b e i n g , o r w h e t h e r t h e y h a d all existed forever, a n d w h a t o u t w a r d f o r m t h e y h a d , t h e G r e e k s k n e w n o t until, so to speak, y e s t e r d a y o r t h e d a y b e f o r e " (Hist 2.53). T h e s a m e figure is given in Ant. 1.13, a n d is b r o k e n d o w n in t h e following w a y : 3 0 0 0 y e a r s f r o m t h e b i r t h of A d a m t o t h e d e a t h of M o s e s (CA 1.39); 2 0 0 0 y e a r s f r o m M o s e s to T i t u s (2.226). I n Ant. 1 0 . 1 4 8 , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s r e c k o n s only 4 5 1 3 y e a r s for t h e s a m e p e r i o d . T h e p r o b l e m s b e s e t t i n g J o s e p h u s ' c h r o n o l o g y c a n mercifully b e a v o i d e d . 13

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

121

sian wars (i.e., the later sixth century BCE, CA 1.13). T h e reason was that, prior to this, the Greeks had no alphabet and so were unable to keep historical records (1.10). Josephus asserts that "it is a highly controversial and disputed question whether those w h o took part in the Trojan War made use of letters. Throughout Greek literature no work is found more ancient than the poetry of Homer. His date is clearly later than the Trojan War, and even he, they say, did not leave his poems in writing" (1.11-12). Plato had made much the same point in the Timaeus. T h e Egyptian priest told Solon that periodic cataclysms destroyed all historical records in Greece, "so that you [Greeks] become as young as ever, with no knowledge of all that happened in ancient times in this land or your own" (23ab). Josephus contends that even what historical material the Greeks did produce was marred by inaccuracies because of their failure to keep public records and because of their regard for style rather than sub­ stance (1.19-27). According to him better records of the distant past were preserved by the "barbarians": the Egyptians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, and of course the Jews. "For all these peoples," he writes, "live in places where the climate causes little decay, and they take great care not to let any of the events of their history pass out of memory. O n the contrary, they have them enshrined in official records written by their greatest sages" (1.9). For this reason Josephus will build his case for the antiquity of the Jews on the evidence of bar­ barian records, although he acknowledges that the Greeks are in­ clined to distrust their histories. Josephus quotes first from Manetho, an Egyptian priest in Heliopolis, who dedicated to Ptolemy II Philadelphus a political and reli­ gious history of Egypt from its beginnings down to Alexander the Great. Like many native histories of the Hellenistic period Manetho's Aegyptiaca claimed to be based on temple records which he translated into Greek. Josephus had mentioned Manetho once in passing in the Antiquities (1.107), but without citing him. N o w in CA 1 . 7 5 - 1 0 5 Josephus quotes at length from Manetho's account of the Hyksos, their lowly origin in the east, their domination of and expulsion from Egypt, and their flight to Judaea, where they founded the city of Jerusalem. Believing (wrongly) that the name "Hyksos" meant "cap­ tives" and "shepherds" in Egyptian, Josephus identified this people with the Jews because, he says, our ancestors lived a pastoral life. From this account Josephus draws the desired conclusion: "Manetho has thus furnished us with evidence from Egyptian records on two

122

ARTHUR J. DROGE

most important points: first, that we came to Egypt from elsewhere, and second, that we left it at a date so remote in the past that it preceded the Trojan War by nearly a thousand years" (1.104). O n the pretense, then, that Manetho himself had identified the Hyksos with the Jews, Josephus believed he had found evidence to prove that the Jews were not only ancient, but a people of non-Egyptian origin, a point he hammers home in the first book. Josephus draws next on the Phoenician archives of Tyre, known to him through the historians w h o translated them into Greek, Dius and Menander of Ephesus (1.106-27). "It is there recorded," he writes, "that the temple at Jerusalem was built by King Solomon 143 years and eight months before the foundation of Carthage by the Tyrians" (1.108). This calculation is based allegedly on the list of the reigns of the kings of Tyre compiled by Menander (1.121-25), the coordination of Solomon and Hiram by both Menander and Dius ( 1 . 1 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 1 7 - 2 0 ; cf. 1 Kings 5:1-12 and Ant. 8.50-54), and the otherwise unsubstantiated claim that the temple at Jerusalem was built in the twelfth year of Hiram's reign (1.126). O f course, Josephus emphasizes that "our ancestors arrived in the country long before the temple was built" (1.127). Finally, Josephus exploits the Babylonian history of Berossus, a priest of Bel, w h o composed his work about 280 B C E and dedicated it to Antiochus I Soter. Like Manetho's history, Berossus' Babyloniaca (or Chaldaicci) was written in Greek, reached from mythical times down to Alexander, and claimed to be based on temple archives. Josephus had referred to Berossus six times in the Antiquities, repeating in CA 1.135-41 the lengthy citation in Ant. 10.220-26. In contrast to 14

15

16

14

Cf. 1.75, 2 5 2 , 2 7 8 ; 2 . 8 . It b e a r s r e p e a t i n g t h a t M a n e t h o himself d i d n o t m a k e a n y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e H y k s o s a n d t h e J e w s . I n fact, it d o e s n o t s e e m t h a t M a n e t h o f o u n d a n y m e n t i o n of t h e J e w s (or Moses) in his E g y p t i a n archives. O n t h e p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g J o s e p h u s ' use of M a n e t h o h e r e a n d in CA 1 . 2 2 8 - 2 5 0 ( w h e r e h e is a witness t o t h e Egyptian origin of t h e Jews!), see b e l o w . T h e citations f r o m D i u s a n d M e n a n d e r a r e t a k e n o v e r v e r b a t i m from Ant. 8 . 1 4 4 - 4 9 . O t h e r q u o t a t i o n s from M e n a n d e r a r e f o u n d in Ant. 8 . 3 2 4 a n d 9 . 2 8 4 - 8 7 ; cf. CA 1 . 1 5 6 - 5 8 . O n e c a n n o t b e c e r t a i n t h a t J o s e p h u s k n e w these w o r k s directly. A reference t o t h e Phoenician Antiquities of (an otherwise u n k n o w n ) H i e r o n y m u s t h e E g y p ­ t i a n o c c u r s in a list of b a r b a r i a n witnesses t o t h e flood in Ant. 1.94. Since t h e n a m e of N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s , t h e friend a n d c o u r t h i s t o r i a n of H e r o d t h e G r e a t , c o m e s last in this list, it m a y b e t h a t J o s e p h u s d e p e n d e d o n N i c o l a u s ' universal history for his k n o w l e d g e of P h o e n i c i a n a n t i q u i t i e s (cf. Ant. 1.107-08). See S. M . Burstein, The B a b y l o n i a c a of Berossus, S A N E 1.5 (Malibu, C A : U n d e n a P u b l i c a t i o n , 1978). 15

16

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND

123

BARBARIANS

his use of Egyptian and Phoenician sources, Josephus appeals to Berossus not for chronological information but to substantiate vari­ ous biblical accounts: the flood, N o a h and his descendants, the de­ struction of the temple, the exile, and the rebuilding of the temple under Cyrus. At least so Josephus alleges. In fact, neither the quota­ tion in CA 1.135-41 nor the one in 1.146-53 affords proof of any of these assertions. Once more Josephus has treated the evidence with considerable freedom in order to arrive at his desired conclu­ sion: "the allusions made to us in the records and literature of the Chaldaeans . . . are in close agreement with our own scriptures" (1.128), and "the evidence for my assertions as to the antiquity of our genos is confirmed and incontrovertible" (1.160). In the preface to the Contra Apionem Josephus had said that he would prove the antiquity of the Jews on the basis of "the writers who, in the estimation of the Greeks, are the most trustworthy au­ thorities on antiquity as a whole" (1.4). N o t all Greek critics of the Antiquities were likely to be convinced by Josephus appeal to barbarian histories. Their charge that the Jews were a vecbxepov yevoq was based on the fact that the best Greek historians had failed to mention them. In CA 1.161-218 Josephus undertakes the daunting task of demon­ strating the antiquity of the Jews on the basis of Greek writers. The evidence is meager and Josephus tries to make the most of it; but when all else fails he is not above misrepresentation and even, on occasion, inventing the references he needs. Josephus can find only seven references to the Jews by Greek writers: Hermippus bi­ ography of Pythagoras; Theophrastus; Herodotus; Choerilus; Aristode (as quoted by Clearchus); Hecataeus of Abdera; and Agatharcides. O f these, two seem specious. Herodotus' reference to "the Syrians of Palestine" who practice circumcision (Hist. 2.104.3) is probably not a reference to the J e w s . Choerilus' reference to "Solymian hills" is certainly not a reference to Jerusalem. Leaving aside the difficulties surrounding the testimonia of Hecataeus and Clearchus, we are left with only five references by Greek writers to the Jews and Judaism, 17

5

18

5

19

20

21

17

A n e x t r a c t (one sentence!) f r o m B e r o s s u s ' a c c o u n t of t h e flood is g i v e n in Ant. 1.93. Again, J o s e p h u s ' m a y h a v e derived his k n o w l e d g e of Berossus from Nicolaus. See t h e references in n o t e 6, a b o v e . See t h e discussion in S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, vol. 1, p p . 3 - 4 . See T h a c k e r a y ' s n o t e o n 1.172 ( p p . 2 3 2 - 3 3 ) . C h o e r i l u s is o m i t t e d f r o m S t e r n ' s collection. O n w h i c h , see S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, vol. 1, p p . 2 0 - 4 4 a n d 4 7 - 5 2 . 18

19

2 0

21

124

ARTHUR J. DROGE

surely insufficient evidence to warrant the claim that "our antiquity is sufficiently established b y . . . numerous Greek historians" (1.215). In fact, not one of the Greek writers cited by Josephus even men­ tions the antiquity of the J e w s . Josephus seems to be aware of the fragility of the evidence, and his desperation begins to show at the conclusion of this section, where he races through a list of names of eleven Greek writers without providing any documentation. 22

(216) In addition to those already cited, Theophilus, T h e o d o t u s , Mnaseas, A r i s t o p h a n e s , H e r m o g e n e s , E u h e m e r u s , C o n o n , Zopyrion, a n d p e r h a p s m a n y others—for m y reading has not been exhaustive—have made m o r e t h a n a passing allusion to us. (217) T h e majority of these a u t h o r s h a v e m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e facts of o u r history from the beginning, b e ­ cause they h a v e n o t r e a d o u r sacred books; b u t all c o n c u r in testifying to o u r antiquity, a n d t h a t is t h e p o i n t with w h i c h I a m at present c o n c e r n e d . (218) D e m e t r i u s P h a l e r e u s , Philo the Elder, a n d E u p o l e m u s a r e exceptional in their a p p r o x i m a t i o n of the truth. It is necessary to excuse t h e m o n t h e g r o u n d of their inability to follow quite accurately t h e m e a n i n g of o u r r e c o r d s (1.216-18).

Once more the evidence is tenuous at best, for none of these writers can be identified with absolute certainty. Alexander Polyhistor, the first-century B C E Greek ethnographer, cites a Theophilus to confirm the report of the Jewish historian Eupolemus, that Solomon sent a golden pillar to Tyre for the temple of Zeus. Theodotus is probably the Jewish (or Samaritan) author of a poem, On the Jews, also cited by Polyhistor. Josephus mentions Mnaseas later as one of Apion's sources on the Jews (2.112-14) and in Ant. 1.94 he appears in a list of writers on the flood. There is no evidence that Euhemerus (if he can be identified with the author of the Sacred History) mentioned the Jews. O f Aristophanes, Hermogenes, Conon, and Zopyrion almost nothing is k n o w n . Josephus' imperfect knowledge of these authors is secondhand at best, based perhaps on the historical works of Alexander Polyhistor and Nicolaus of Damascus, the friend and court historian of Herod the Great. Josephus appears to be ignorant even 23

24

25

2 2

T a k e n t o g e t h e r , h o w e v e r , these references p r e s e n t a fairly consistent a n d in­ t r i g u i n g p i c t u r e of t h e J e w s . T h e y d e p i c t t h e m as priestly sages of a t y p e t h e G r e e k s e x p e c t e d t h e E a s t to p r o d u c e . B u t J o s e p h u s s h o w s little interest in how t h e J e w s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d ; it is sufficient for h i m that t h e y a r e m e n t i o n e d b y these G r e e k writers. Apud E u s e b i u s , RE. 9 . 3 4 . 1 9 (= FGrHist 7 2 3 F 2). Apud E u s e b i u s , RE. 9 . 2 2 . 1 - 1 1 (= FGrHist 732 F F 1-6). S e e S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, p p . 9 1 , 3 5 0 , 4 5 0 - 5 3 . 23

24

2 5

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

125

of the works of his Jewish predecessors, for in this list he confuses the Jewish poet Philo the Elder and the Jewish historians Eupolemus and Demetrius with Greek writers. Josephus is able to give an illu­ sory impression of scholarship, but it remains doubtful whether he knew any of these historians at first hand. His casual remark in 1.216, that "my reading has not been exhaustive," rings all too true. In sum, there is no compelling reason why Josephus' readers should accept his claim that "all these writers [Greek and barbarian] concur in testifying to our antiquity" (1.217). Josephus' (mis)handling of evidence is of less concern to me than the character and context of his apologetic strategy. Although we cannot applaud his erudition, the sheer effort he expends in trying to prove the antiquity of the Jews reveals just how much was at stake on this issue. For Josephus the allegation of "lateness" was equivalent to the assertion of cultural dependence and historical insignificance. A distinguishing feature of the native histories written in the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods was the claim of "autochthony" (self-generation) on the one hand and of borrowing and diffusion on the other. A nation or people which had only recendy appeared on the stage of history had no real claim to authenticity or originality (that is, could not be autochthonous), since it must have received its culture from the more ancient nations. Simply put, nothing could be both new and true. It is important to keep this perspective in mind if we are to appreciate the cogency (if not the integrity) of Josephus' strategy in the Contra Apionem, for it was a conviction shared both by him and his Greek and Alexandrian adversaries. If some Greeks doubted the antiquity of the Jews, they did so, Josephus alleges, under the malicious influence of a fanatical group of Alexandrian polemicists who claimed that the Jews had contrib­ uted nothing to the rise of civilization. In addition to attacking Moses and Jewish religious practices, Apion also accused Jews of having produced no eminent men, and in particular no inventors or sages on a par with Socrates, Zeno, Cleanthes, and others of that caliber (2.135-36). Similarly, Apollonius Molon derided the Jews as the most incapable of barbarians and the only people w h o had contributed no useful invention to civilization (2.148). 26

2 6

See t h e i m p o r t a n t article b y E . J . B i c k e r m a n , " O r i g i n e s G e n t i u m , " Classical Philology 47 (1952), p p . 6 5 - 8 1 ; cf. R . A. O d e n , " P h i l o of Byblos a n d Hellenistic H i s t o r i o g r a p h y , " Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110 (1978), p p . 1 1 5 - 2 6 .

126

ARTHUR J. DROGE

J o s e p h u s countered these accusations b y arguing that the J e w s were n o t o n l y i n s t r u m e n t a l i n t h e rise a n d diffusion

of civilization, b u t

t h a t t h e G r e e k s i n p a r t i c u l a r w e r e d e p e n d e n t o n t h e m for their cul­ t u r e . A b o v e all, h e p l a c e d special e m p h a s i s o n t h e g r e a t a n t i q u i t y of M o s e s a n d t h e excellence o f his legislation. T h i s t h e m e recurs t h r o u g h ­ o u t t h e s e c o n d b o o k o f t h e Contra Apionem, b u t it is e x p r e s s e d

most

succincdy in 2.151-56, a passage w o r t h q u o t i n g at length. (151) I w o u l d b e g i n with t h e r e m a r k t h a t p e r s o n s w h o h a v e espoused t h e cause of o r d e r a n d c o m m o n l a w a n d b e e n t h e first to i n t r o d u c e t h e m , m a y fairly b e a d m i t t e d to b e m o r e civilized a n d virtuously disposed t h a n those w h o lead lawless a n d disorderly lives. (152) I n fact, e a c h n a t i o n e n d e a v o r s t o t r a c e its o w n institutions b a c k t o t h e remotest d a t e in o r d e r t o c r e a t e t h e impression t h a t , far from imitating others, it h a s b e e n t h e o n e to set its n e i g h b o r s a n e x a m p l e of orderly life u n d e r law. (153) T h a t b e i n g so, t h e virtue of a legislator is t o h a v e insight to see w h a t is best, a n d t o w i n over to t h e laws w h i c h h e introduces those w h o a r e t o live u n d e r t h e m ; t h e virtue of t h e masses is t o a b i d e loyally b y t h e laws a d o p t e d a n d , in p r o s p e r i t y o r in adversity, to m a k e n o c h a n g e in t h e m . (154) N o w I m a i n t a i n t h a t o u r lawgiver is t h e m o s t a n c i e n t of all lawgivers in t h e r e c o r d s of t h e w h o l e world. C o m p a r e d with h i m , y o u r L y c u r g u s a n d Solon a n d Z a l e u c u s , w h o gave t h e L o c r i a n s their laws, a n d all w h o h a v e b e e n held in such high esteem b y t h e Greeks a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n b o r n b u t yesterday. W h y t h e very w o r d " l a w " [vouo<;] w a s u n k n o w n in a n c i e n t G r e e c e . (155) Witness H o m e r , w h o n o w h e r e e m p l o y s it in his p o e m s . I n fact, t h e r e w a s n o such t h i n g in his day; t h e masses w e r e g o v e r n e d b y m a x i m s [yvcoum] n o t clearly defined a n d b y o r d e r s of royalty, a n d t h e use of u n w r i t t e n c u s t o m s c o n t i n u e d long afterwards, w h i c h w e r e from t i m e t o time altered to suit p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . (156) O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , o u r legislator, w h o lived in t h e r e m o t e s t a n t i q u i t y (that, I p r e s u m e , is a d m i t t e d even b y o u r most u n s c r u p u l o u s detractors) p r o v e d himself t h e p e o p l e ' s best guide a n d counselor; a n d after f r a m i n g a c o d e t o e m b r a c e t h e whole c o n d u c t of t h e i r life, i n d u c e d t h e m t o a c c e p t it, a n d s e c u r e d o n t h e firmest footing its o b s e r v a n c e for all t i m e . The

representation

o f M o s e s in this p a s s a g e o w e s m o r e t o Plato's

Laws t h a n it d o e s t o t h e b o o k o f D e u t e r o n o m y . M o s e s a p p e a r s a s a politician w h o c a n take his place in t h e ranks of t h e best lawgivers t h e G r e e k s h a d p r o d u c e d , y e t s u p e r i o r t o t h e m all b o t h i n his u n ­ paralleled antiquity a n d in t h e quality a n d durability of his l a w code. J o s e p h u s e v e n credits M o s e s w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f a u n i q u e political c o n s t i t u t i o n , theokratia, w h i c h h e c l a i m s is f a r s u p e r i o r t o t h e t h r e e forms of g o v e r n m e n t k n o w n t o t h e rest of h u m a n k i n d

(2.164-65).

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

127

And this explains the alleged lack of inventiveness on the part of the Jews. N o additional discoveries or innovations could improve what was already the ideal state, secure in its cultural harmony and uni­ formity for all time, and immune to the undulating pattern of pros­ perity and misfortune so prominent in the Deuteronomic history (cf. 2.182-89). In addition to emphasizing Moses' legal and political contributions, Josephus asserted the dependence of Greek philosophers from Pythag­ oras to the Stoics on the Mosaic conception of deity: [Moses] r e p r e s e n t e d h i m as o n e , u n c r e a t e d , a n d i m m u t a b l e to all eter­ nity; in b e a u t y surpassing all h u m a n t h o u g h t , m a d e k n o w n to us b y his p o w e r , a l t h o u g h his essence is b e y o n d k n o w i n g . T h e wisest of t h e Greeks learned to a d o p t these conceptions of G o d from principles w h i c h Moses supplied t h e m . . . . I n fact, P y t h a g o r a s , A n a x a g o r a s , Plato, a n d the Stoics w h o succeeded h i m , a n d i n d e e d nearly all p h i l o s o p h e r s , a p ­ p e a r to h a v e held similar ideas a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of G o d (2.167-68). In two points, in particular, Plato followed t h e e x a m p l e of o u r leg­ islator. H e prescribed as the p r i m a r y d u t y of t h e citizens a study of their laws, w h i c h they m u s t all l e a r n w o r d for w o r d b y h e a r t . A g a i n , h e took p r e c a u t i o n s to p r e v e n t foreigners from m i x i n g with t h e m at r a n d o m , a n d to keep the state p u r e a n d confined to l a w - a b i d i n g citi­ zens (2.257). O u r earliest imitators w e r e t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s , w h o , t h o u g h ostensibly preserving their ancestral traditions, yet in their c o n d u c t a n d philosophy w e r e M o s e s ' disciples, h o l d i n g similar views a b o u t G o d , a n d a d v o c a t i n g a life of simplicity a n d friendly c o m m u n i o n b e t w e e n m a n a n d m a n (2.281).

Note that the comparison between Moses and Plato in these pas­ sages is placed in the service of establishing similarity between Jews and Greeks, while the real differences which existed between them are sacrificed on the altar of apologetics. As employed by Jose­ phus, comparison was a strategy for overcoming strangeness, but with a surprising and dangerous twist. Instead of describing the "other" (the Greeks) in terms of what is familiar "back home" (the Jews), Josephus' comparison was conceived and executed on the basis of criteria which were entirely Greek, for the Judaism Josephus com­ pared had already been subjected to an interpretatio graeca. Moses is made to fit the Greek model of founder-figure, lawgiver, and politi­ cian, whose contributions to the history of religion can be glossed in Platonic, not biblical, terms: G o d is one, uncreated, and immutable.

128

ARTHUR J. DROGE

In other words, Josephus' comparison between Jews and Greeks amounts to what could be called a "reverse-ethnography": compar­ ing Jews with Greeks on the latter's terms. Josephus is not content merely to identify similarity, he also intro­ duces a theory to account for it, one which placed the highest value on chronological priority. "They" (the Greeks) are like "us" (the Jews), Josephus contends, because they have borrowed from us. H e even goes so far as to say that the Greek philosophers maintained only the appearance of upholding their own native traditions [ta patria), when in reality they were Moses' disciples. Here Josephus' claims approxi­ mate those of the second-century B C E Alexandrian-Jewish writer, Aristobulus, w h o maintained that Pythagoras and Plato derived their philosophy from a pre-Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch. But Josephus never explicitly stated that any of the Greek philosophers had read Moses, as Aristobulus asserted. Aside from some vague notion of diffusion, it remains unclear just how they acquired their similar ideas about God. Presumably Josephus thought it sufficient to argue for chronological priority without demonstrating specific ex­ amples of contact. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc may be a logical fallacy, but it could be an effective argument in a debate where both parties conceded so much authority to antiquity. T h e theme of the dependence of the Greek philosophers, and Plato in particular, on Moses had been a hallmark of Hellenistic-Jewish historiography for almost three centuries. In addition to Aristobulus, the Jewish historians Eupolemus and Artapanus presented Moses and the patriarchs as culture-bringers to the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Phoenicians, w h o in turn civilized the Greeks. That is, these ancient barbarian nations acted as the intermediaries between Jews and Greeks. Abraham, a world traveler and less legalistic than Moses, became one of the preferred heroes in these versions of Jewish history. While the Jewish Antiquities has much in c o m m o n with this literature, it does not portray any of the biblical heroes as culture-bringers. Only in the Contra Apionem—and only with respect to Moses—does this be­ come a distinguishing feature of Josephus' apologetic strategy. Josephus will admit only one difference between Moses and the 27

28

2 7

A r i s t o b u l u s refers t o a t r a n s l a t i o n m a d e " b e f o r e t h e c o n q u e s t s of A l e x a n d e r a n d t h e P e r s i a n s " (apud E u s e b i u s , P.E. 13.12.1). J o s e p h u s n e v e r m e n t i o n s Aristobulus. S e e A . J . D r o g e , Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture, H U T h 2 6 ( T ü b i n g e n : J . C . B . M ö h r [ P a u l S i e b e c k ] , 1989), p p . 1 2 - 3 5 , a n d t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h e r e cited. T h i s e t h n o c e n t r i c c l a i m w a s o n e t h a t m a n y " b a r b a r i a n s " claimed to share with the Jews. 2 8

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

129

Greek philosophers: whereas the latter addressed themselves to the few, Moses taught a whole nation "and their descendants to all fu­ ture generations" (2.169; cf. 2.189, 221). But there is more. The Mosaic law also had a profound civilizing effect on all peoples, whether Greek or barbarian, and he calls on a variety of ethnographic "data" to dem­ onstrate the similarities that exist between various pagan practices and Jewish customs. (282) T h e masses h a v e long since s h o w n a keen desire to a d o p t o u r religious observances; a n d t h e r e is n o t o n e city, G r e e k o r b a r b a r i a n , n o r a single n a t i o n , to w h i c h o u r c u s t o m of a b s t a i n i n g from w o r k o n the seventh d a y h a s n o t s p r e a d , a n d w h e r e fasts a n d the lighting of l a m p s a n d m a n y of o u r p r o h i b i t i o n s in the m a t t e r of food a r e n o t observed. (282) M o r e o v e r , they a t t e m p t to imitate o u r u n a n i m i t y , o u r liberal charities, o u r d e v o t e d l a b o r in crafts, a n d o u r e n d u r a n c e u n d e r persecution o n b e h a l f of o u r laws. (284) T h e greatest miracle of all is that o u r law holds n o seductive bait of sensual pleasure; a n d , as G o d p e r m e a t e s the universe, so the law h a s found its w a y a m o n g all h u ­ m a n k i n d (2.282-84).

Thus Josephus claims that the law of Moses is not only the most ancient of all legal codes, it also had produced civilization on a universal scale, without the mediation of the Egyptians, Babylonians, or Phoenicians. Josephus was being a little disingenuous then when he stated at the beginning of his treatise that "the first to philoso­ phize among the Greeks . . . such as Pherecydes of Syros, Pythagoras, and Thales, were, as all unanimously admit, . . . disciples of the Egyptians and Babylonians" (1.14). From the perspective of his Greek readers there was nothing particularly novel or even objectionable in such an assertion. But Josephus' goal was far more ambitious. H a d these Greeks the inclination or endurance to read Josephus' treatise in its entirety, they were in for a surprise. By the end of the second book the chronological and cultural superiority of the Egyptians and Babylonians vis-a-vis the Greeks would be supplanted by the Jews in the person of Moses and his book of laws. H a d [ M o s e s ' laws] b e e n either c o m m i t t e d to writing o r m o r e consist­ ently observed b y others before us, w e should h a v e o w e d t h e m a d e b t of h o n o r as their disciples. If, h o w e v e r , it is seen t h a t n o o n e observes t h e m better t h a n ourselves, a n d if w e h a v e s h o w n t h a t w e w e r e t h e first to discover t h e m , t h e n t h e A p i o n s a n d the M o l o n s a n d all w h o delight in lies a n d abuse m a y b e left to their o w n confusion (2.295).

The model for this defensive strategy is at least as old as Herodotus, in whom the notion of autochthony was linked to claims of borrowing

130

ARTHUR J. DROGE

and dependency. A prominent theme in the second book of the Histories is that the Egyptians are autochthonous and dependent on no one for their customs (2.79, 91). T h e Greeks, by contrast, being a "second-hand culture," borrowed freely from the more ancient Egyptians, though Herodotus implies no negative judgment in this regard. The Herodotean enterprise of cultural comparison was carried to new heights by Hecataeus of Abdera, w h o published a history of Egypt under Ptolemaic patronage in the last decades of the fourth century B C E . Like Herodotus, Hecataeus traveled and lived for a time in Egypt, but his history is much more than a collection of casual observations by a world-traveler. "It is perhaps the best ex­ ample of a complete ethnographic and historical description of a particular people, and served as a model for many later writers." Three centuries later Diodorus condensed it for his Historical Library, and Jewish forgers even published books On the Jews and On Abraham and the Egyptians under the authoritative name of Hecataeus. T h e propagandistic intentions of Hecataeus are evident through­ out his history but especially in the description of the diffusion of civilization from Egypt to the rest of the world (Diod. 1.28.1-29.5). However much Hecataeus may have owed to Egyptian sources, his account is structured on the model of Greek colonization, the found­ ing of cities abroad, and the establishment of institutions to regulate the lives of the settlers. Hecataeus reports the Egyptian claim that "a great number of colonies were spread from Egypt all over the inhabited world." Belus went to Babylon where he appointed priests called Chaldaeans (1.28.1); Danaus founded Argos, one of the oldest cities in Greece (1.28.2); the nation (eOvoq) of the Colcheans, who settled in Pontus, and of the Jews, w h o inhabit the region between 29

30

31

32

2 9

E.g., Hist. 2.4, 4 3 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 1 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 8 1 , 8 2 . It s e e m s c e r t a i n t h a t t h e E g y p ­ t i a n priests w i t h w h o m H e r o d o t u s s w a p p e d stories h a d a l a r g e h a n d in c o n t r i v i n g t h e i m a g e of t h e m s e l v e s w h i c h a p p e a r s in t h e s e c o n d b o o k of t h e Histories. See f u r t h e r J . Z . S m i t h , Map Is Not Territory, S J L A 2 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), p p . 2 4 3 - 4 9 . P r o b a b l y a b o u t 3 1 5 B C E . A l t h o u g h n o l o n g e r e x t a n t , m u c h of H e c a t a e u s ' his­ t o r y survives in t h e first b o o k of D i o d o r u s of Sicily's Historical Library 1 . 1 0 - 9 8 , w h i c h is p r i n t e d , m i n u s t h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n s of D i o d o r u s himself, in FGrHist 2 6 4 F 2 5 . F o r c o n v e n i e n c e , I give t h e references t o t h e text of D i o d o r u s . O . M u r r a y , " H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a a n d P h a r a o n i c K i n g s h i p , " Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5 6 (1970), p p . 1 4 1 - 7 1 , q u o t a t i o n f r o m p . 150. I n CA 1 . 1 8 3 - 2 0 5 J o s e p h u s e x c e r p t e d p o r t i o n s of a b o o k On the Jews, allegedly w r i t t e n b y H e c a t a e u s , a n d in Ant. 1.159 h e m e n t i o n s in p a s s i n g a b o o k o n A b r a h a m w h i c h C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a l a t e r cited u n d e r t h e tide On Abraham and the Egyptians (Strom. 5.14.113). S e e f u r t h e r S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, vol. 1, p p . 2 0 - 4 4 . 3 0

3 1

3 2

131

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

Arabia and Syria, were both founded as colonies by Egyptian emigres. That is why, Hecataeus adds, the practice of circumcision is a longestablished ritual in both places, "the custom having been brought over from Egypt" (1.28.2-3). Even the Athenians, the Egyptians say, were originally colonists from Sais in Egypt (1.28.4). A rather lengthy comparative ethnography follows which is intended to confirm, in the manner of Herodotus, Athenian dependence on Egypt (1.28.4— 29.5). The section then concludes with an explanation for this colonial expansion on the part of Egypt: it came about "as a result of the brilliance of their former kings and the extraordinary growth in population" (1.29.5). In sum, Egypt was the prestigious source from which all civilization flowed. A variant form of this account occurs in Diodorus 4 0 . 3 . 1 - 8 , with two noteworthy differences: the departure of colonists from Egypt has become the expulsion of all foreigners, whose alien religious prac­ tices had offended the gods of Egypt and caused a plague in the land; and Moses is identified as the leader of the J e w s . But even this alternative version contains no denigration of Moses and the Jews, or for that matter any of the so-called aliens. Hecataeus places Moses in the illustrious company of Danaus and Cadmus. H e is a man distinguished by his wisdom and courage, w h o not only guided the emigration but founded Jerusalem and its temple, instituted a pure form of religion, established the priesthood, divided the people into twelve tribes, enacted laws, and created social institutions, in­ cluding an educational system worthy of Sparta. If the religion and way of life introduced by Moses differed from, and were slighdy hostile to, foreigners, this was understandable in light of the difficult expe­ rience of leaving Egypt. Hecataeus' excursus concludes with the notice that the traditional customs of the Jews were irrevocably changed when they fell under Persian and then Macedonian hegemony. Hecataeus' history contains the first reference to Moses in pagan Greek literature, and one would be hard pressed to find a more glowing portrayal. A fascinating feature of his report is what appears to be a quotation from the Pentateuch. H e says that at the end of the Laws of Moses one finds the following postscript: "These are the 33

3 3

T h i s section of H e c a t a e u s ' history survives o n l y a t t h i r d h a n d . D i o d o r u s q u o t e d it, a n d his text in t u r n is p r e s e r v e d b y P h o t i u s . O n t h e p r o b l e m s p r e s e n t e d b y this a n d t h e p r e v i o u s a c c o u n t , see J . G . G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, S B L M S 16 (Nashville a n d N e w Y o r k : A b i n g d o n , 1972), p p . 2 8 - 2 9 .

132

ARTHUR J. DROGE

34

words that Moses heard from G o d and declared to the Jews" (40.3.6). But the discrepancies between Hecataeus' account and the biblical narrative are sufficient to rule out any detailed knowledge of the latter. H e does not appear to know, for example, of the patriarchs or that the Jews were once ruled by kings. Rather, his ethnography has been pieced together from the accounts of Egyptian priests and perhaps information he collected from Jews he met in Egypt. While the fragment preserved by Diodorus and quoted by Photius does not allow us to see clearly the purpose of his Jewish excursus, one thing is clear. Hecataeus was not especially concerned to advance the cause of the Jews. In both conception and execution Hecataeus' ethnography—his description of the "other"—was an interpretatio graeca, determined by his philosophical and political theory. His discovery of the Jews was the realization of Plato's hope of the existence of the ideal state "in some barbarian region far beyond our present sight" (Rep. 499cd). But Hecataeus was also aware that the Jews no longer conformed to his Utopian vision, that they, like the Egyptians, had experienced an inevitable decline from their Golden Age, a common­ place in Greek ethnography. Hecataeus implies no negative judgment in claiming that Moses and the Jews were originally Egyptian colonists or, in the variant account, foreigners expelled from Egypt. Their dependence on a prestigious source was a mark of pedigree, of being of "good stock," not a smudge o n their integrity as a people. T h e Herodotean model of cultural comparison had been a means of overcoming the strange­ ness of the other; differences between Egyptians and Greeks were relativized by means of comparison. In Hecataeus, by contrast, the distinctive features which characterized the Jews as a people were allowed to stand; the differences remained differences. But these dis­ tinctive features were not "real" differences. It is not just that they had ceased to characterize the Jewish way of life as a result of Persian and Macedonian influence. They never existed. Like many anthro­ pologists since, Hecataeus made his data conform to his philosophi­ cal views. H e discovered in the Jews a Utopian society of priestly 35

36

3 4

P e r h a p s D e u t . 2 9 : 1 ; cf. L e v . 2 6 : 4 6 , 2 7 : 3 4 ; N u m . 2 6 : 1 3 . S e e M u r r a y , " H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a , " p . 1 5 8 ; a n d G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, p p . 3 1 - 3 4 . O n l y occasionally d o e s H e r o d o t u s e n c o u n t e r t h e truly u n i q u e . S e e , for e x a m p l e , Hist. 1.140: " T h e M a g i a r e different from all o t h e r m e n a n d also from t h e priests of t h e E g y p t i a n s . " N o t e d b y S m i t h , Map Is Not Territory, p p . 2 4 6 - 4 7 . 3 5

3 6

133

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

sages of a kind the East was expected to produce, and in this fashion they were presented to the Greek world. Hecataeus' history of Egypt, so comprehensive and well researched, quickly became the standard work on Egypt and the prototype for the new historiography of native cultures, for it appears to have prompted responses from other native historians w h o were eager to promote a belief in the antiquity and grandeur of their own people. The Egyptian Manetho, the Babylonian Berossus, and the Phoenician Philo of Byblus produced what was expected of them: histories of their respective countries written in Greek in a manner suitable to Greeks. And this phenomenon continued long after the kingdoms of Alexander's successors dissolved under R o m a n h e g e m o n y . Hecataeus had produced a model and, more importantly, had established a relationship between Egyptians, Greeks, and Jews which would become the standard for nearly three centuries. Both Josephus' method of cultural comparison and his representation of Judaism remain in thrall to Hecataeus' ethnographic model. T o insist, as he does at the beginning of his treatise, that the first Greek philoso­ phers were "disciples" of the Egyptians and Babylonians, was to say nothing new. Even the Jews could find a place for themselves in this model as a result of their historical connection to Egypt. Jewish and Egyptian history were intertwined, not only in scripture, but more importantly in the ethnographic imagination of the Greeks. Whether as native Egyptians or as resident aliens, the Jews had been linked to a prestigious source which conferred on them an enviable antiquity and pedigree. In this sense, then, the Jews too were called upon to perpetuate their own myth in the terms in which the Greeks had invented it. And it appears that some were eager to oblige. In the second century B C E the Jewish historian Artapanus felt no qualms over presenting Moses in the guise of the Egyptian hero Sesostris, crediting him with the division of Egypt into thirty-six nomes, the invention of hieroglyphics, philosophy, and even the establish­ ment of Egyptian religion. For all of these cultural benefits, Artapanus reports, the priests honored Moses "like a god." Even two centuries later, Philo's Moses appears as one thoroughly educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians and Babylonians. For both Artapanus and Philo, 37

38

39

3 7

See M u r r a y , " H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a , " p . 166; cf. idem, " H e r o d o t u s a n d H e l l e n ­ istic C u l t u r e , " Classical Quarterly 2 2 (1972), p p . 2 0 7 - 1 0 . Apud E u s e b i u s , RE. 9 . 2 7 . 3 - 6 . De vita Mosis 1.21-24. 38

39

134

ARTHUR J. DROGE

the connection to Egypt established pedigree not dependence, and gained for the Jews entrance into an exclusive club of barbarian nations from w h o m the Greeks themselves admitted they had learned. But to claim, as Josephus did, that Moses was the most ancient lawgiver, from w h o m not only the Greek philosophers but all humankind derived their wisdom—Greeks and barbarians alike—this was an astonishing claim, and one, moreover, which required reconfiguring the old ethnographic model. Israel would have to assume the role of Hecataean Egypt. By the time Josephus sat down to write the Contra Apionem, the Egyptian card could no longer be played. In the period around 40 C E , when the civil strife between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria became acute, the old story of the expulsion of foreigners from Egypt, familiar to us from the versions of Hecataeus and Manetho, was rewritten and applied to the Jews in a decidedly negative fashion. There is general agreement that the underlying story (if there was just one) reaches far back into Egyptian history and had nothing whatever to do with the J e w s . While there are many versions, they have the following c o m m o n elements: the invasion of Egypt by foreigners (variously called Hyksos and Syrians), an ensuing period of foreign domination and religious persecution, and the final expulsion of these foreigners by a hero-king. T h e traditional story proved remarkably durable. Echoes of it can be heard in Egyptian texts dating from the Hellenistic period: the Demotic Chronicle, the Potter's Oracle, and the Prophecy of the Lamb. Persians and later Greeks took the place of the Hyksos and the Syrians. It is not clear just when the Jews were introduced into the story. M u c h depends on the famous question whether the well-deserving historian Manetho was responsible for the anti-Jewish version of the legend Josephus attributes to him, or whether it represents the work of a later interpolator who wished to claim the authority of Manetho. W e have already considered Josephus' use of Manetho's account of the Hyksos in CA 1.75-90 which he used to date the Exodus a thousand years before the Trojan War (1.104). But Manetho reappears at some length at the end of the first book (1.227-250), this time as the source of an account of the expulsion of impure people from Egypt in the reign of Amenophis. In contrast to the first account, 40

4 0

S e e t h e i m p o r t a n t article b y J . Y o y o t t e , " L ' E g y p t e a n c i e n n e et les origines d e l ' a n t i j u d a ï s m e , " Revue de l'histoire des religions 163 (1963), p p . 1 3 3 - 4 3 .

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

135

which Josephus says Manetho derived from priesdy records, the sec­ ond narrative was based allegedly on "fictitious stories and rumors" (1.229). The Jewish historian then proceeds to relate this narrative in Manetho's "actual words" (K<XTCC A,e£iv). W h e n the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenophis desired a vision of the gods, his diviner told him this would be possible only if he purged Egypt of all its lepers. Thereupon the pharaoh gathered some 80,000 impure people and segregated them in the abandoned city of Avaris. There they chose a leader, Osarsiph, a priest of Heliopolis, w h o for­ bade his followers to worship the gods of Egypt, commanding them instead to sacrifice and consume all the animals sacred to the Egyp­ tians. Osarsiph also readied his followers for war against Egypt, en­ listing the assistance of the "shepherd people," 20,000 strong, now living in Jerusalem. Forced on the defensive, Amenophis and his army withdrew across the border into Ethiopia, where they remained in exile for thirteen years. During that period the polluted Egyptians wreaked havoc on Egypt, plundering the land, razing cities, robbing and desecrating temples, and persecuting the Egyptian priesthood. The tale concludes with the return of Amenophis and his son Ramses from Ethiopia, the defeat of the rebels, and their expulsion from Egypt to the borders of Syria. Only near the end of the quote from Manetho do we learn that the renegade priest Osarsiph, w h o gave his followers a constitution and a code of laws, changed his name to Moses. What is so puzzling about this story is that it contains no explicit identification of the Jews with the impure people. Josephus makes that claim in his introduction: Manetho, he says, wished "to repre­ sent us as mixed up with a crowd of Egyptian lepers and others, who for various maladies, were condemned . . . to banishment from the country" (1.229). T h e identification of Osarsiph with Moses would seem to seal the matter, but nearly all scholars agree that it is a later addition to Manetho's text. T h e first mention of Osarsiph (1.238) contains no reference to Moses; the second reference (1.250) is a needless repetition, with a curious change in the spelling of the name, and introduced by the phrase, "it is said." All the signs point to a secondary hand. T h e version of the expulsion story as we have it in Josephus' second excerpt belongs to a later period, when it was attributed to Manetho by an anonymous Alexandrian writer in order 41

See G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, p . 117.

136

ARTHUR J. DROGE

to give it greater authority. A precise date for the interpolation is beyond our grasp. W e would be in a better position if the date of Lysimachus' version of the expulsion story were known. Diodorus gives a brief account of an expulsion which has certain features in common with Lysimachus, though he fails to mention his source (Diod. 34.1, preserved by Photius). This would be grounds for locating the tradition in the first century BCE. But a date around 40 CE, when the conflict between Greeks and Jews over Alexandrian citizenship turned violent, seems more likely. That was also about the time Apion and Chaeremon, both hellenized Egyptians who enjoyed Alexandrian citizenship, concocted their own similar versions of the expulsion story. Josephus himself attributed Apion's malice toward the Jews to the political and ethnic strife in R o m a n Alexandria. T h e currency of these Alexandrian expulsion stories stretched the Jewish connection to Egypt to the breaking point. The old Hecataean ethnography, which had proved so influential and durable in estab­ lishing the relationship between Egyptians and Jews, failed to weather the storm of counter-histories produced by the likes of (ps.) Manetho, Lysimachus, Apion, and Chaeremon. Still, Hecataeus continued to exert an influence, at least to the extent that the different versions of the Alexandrian expulsion story were constructed in direct opposition to Hecataeus' account of Jewish origins. It is wrong to claim, as most do, that Apion and his ilk created an "anti-Exodus" in response to the biblical account. Admittedly, that was how Josephus explained 42

43

44

45

4 2

D a t e s r a n g e f r o m t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C E t o t h e first c e n t u r y C E ; see A. G u d e m a n n , " L y s i m a c h u s (20)," RE 14 (1928), p p . 3 2 - 3 9 . See G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, p . 118; a n d E . J . B i c k e r m a n , The Jews in the Greek Age ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 2 2 4 - 2 5 . O n t h e conflict in A l e x a n d r i a , see E. M . S m a l l w o o d , The Jews Under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations, S J L A 20 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), p p . 2 2 4 - 5 5 . A p i o n led t h e A l e x a n d r i a n delegation to t h e e m p e r o r G a i u s (Ant. 1 8 . 2 5 7 59); C h a e r e m o n h e a d e d t h e d e l e g a t i o n t o C l a u d i u s (CPJ 2.44). J o s e p h u s gives m u c h less a t t e n t i o n t o t h e v e r s i o n s of L y s i m a c h u s ( 1 . 3 0 4 - 1 1 ) , A p i o n ( 2 . 1 5 - 2 8 ) a n d C h a e r e m o n ( 2 . 2 8 8 - 9 2 ) t h a n h e d o e s t o (ps.) M a n e t h o , t h o u g h h e g r o u p s t h e m all t o g e t h e r . A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n m a d e n o use of t h e e x p u l s i o n story in his attacks o n M o s e s a n d t h e J e w s . B u t h e w a s a G r e e k from C a r i a , n o t a native E g y p t i a n . CA 2 . 3 2 : " T h e n o b l e A p i o n ' s b l a s p h e m y a g a i n s t us is a p p a r e n t l y d e s i g n e d as a sort of r e t u r n t o t h e A l e x a n d r i a n s for t h e rights of citizenship w h i c h t h e y c o n f e r r e d o n h i m . K n o w i n g t h e i r h a t r e d of t h e i r J e w i s h n e i g h b o r s in A l e x a n d r i a , h e h a s m a d e it his a i m t o vilify all t h e rest of t h e J e w s in his c o n d e m n a t i o n . " S e e , a m o n g m a n y e x a m p l e s , S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, vol. 1, p . 64: " T h e J e w i s h story of t h e E x o d u s m a d e a n E g y p t i a n r e p l y u r g e n t e v e n before t h e Bible w a s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o G r e e k , b e c a u s e t h e J e w i s h p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e clash b e t w e e n t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d t h e a n c e s t o r s of t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e h a d p r e s u m a b l y w o n s o m e a d h e r 4 3

4 4

4 5

137

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

it, a n d it is o n l y n a t u r a l t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e d o n e s o f o r s t r a t e g i c reasons.

4 6

B u t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n e x p u l s i o n stories w e r e i n fact a n a t t a c k

on the H e c a t a e a n m o d e l a n d indirectly o n those Jewish w h o h a d u s e d it s o effectively

apologists

to their o w n advantage. T h e basic

structure of t h e story r e m a i n e d t h e s a m e , especially t h e central role p l a y e d b y M o s e s . I n b o t h t h e H e c a t a e a n a n d (ps.) M a n e t h o a n v e r s i o n s M o s e s is a f o u n d e r - f i g u r e , l a w g i v e r , a n d t h e o l o g i a n . B u t w h a t

were

virtues in t h e o n e b e c a m e vices in t h e o t h e r . T h e ideal state f o u n d e d by Moses was transformed into a dystopia characterized by misan­ thropy, x e n o p h o b i a , a n d frighteningly bizarre religious c u s t o m s .

4 7

J o s e p h u s t o o is i n d e b t e d t o H e c a t a e u s . T h e M o s e s w h o e m e r g e s f r o m t h e p a g e s o f t h e Contra Apionem b e a r s a s t r i k i n g r e s e m b l a n c e t o H e c a t a e u s ' a d m i r i n g p o r t r a i t o f h i m , less s o t o t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t . H e c a t a e u s is a l s o t h e s o u r c e b e h i n d J o s e p h u s ' d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e Uto­ p i a n state h e credits M o s e s w i t h establishing, as t h e following parallel passages reveal. H e c a t a e u s (apud D i o d . 4 0 . 3 . 3 - 6 )

J o s e p h u s , CA 2 . 1 8 4 - 8 9

(3) [Moses] established t h e t e m p l e that they hold in chief veneration, in­ stituted their forms of w o r s h i p a n d ritual, d r e w u p t h e i r laws a n d o r ­ d e r e d their political institutions. H e also divided t h e m into twelve tribes, since this is r e g a r d e d as t h e m o s t perfect n u m b e r a n d c o r r e s p o n d s t o the m o n t h s of t h e year. (4) B u t h e h a d n o images w h a t e v e r of t h e gods m a d e for t h e m , b e i n g of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t G o d is n o t i n h u m a n f o r m ; rather that t h e h e a v e n t h a t s u r r o u n d s the e a r t h is a l o n e divine a n d rules

(184) F o r us, with o u r conviction that t h e original institution of t h e L a w w a s in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e will of G o d , it w o u l d b e r a n k i m p i e t y n o t to observe it. W h a t c o u l d o n e alter in it? W h a t m o r e beautiful o n e could have been discovered? W h a t im­ p r o v e m e n t i m p o r t e d from elsewhere? W o u l d y o u c h a n g e t h e entire c h a r ­ acter of t h e constitution? (185) C o u l d t h e r e b e a finer a n d m o r e j u s t polity t h a n o n e w h i c h sets G o d a t t h e h e a d of t h e universe, assigns t h e a d m i n i s ­ t r a t i o n of its highest affairs t o t h e

ents in n o n - J e w i s h circles;" a n d V . T c h e r i k o v e r , Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: A t h e n a e u m , 1 9 8 5 [1959]), p . 3 6 3 : " T h e E g y p t i a n priests s a w n e e d t o reply t o t h e biblical story [of t h e E x o d u s ] w h i c h , a s is well k n o w n , is n o t distin­ g u i s h e d for its s y m p a t h y for t h e E g y p t i a n s . " CA 1.223: " T h e b l a s p h e m i e s a g a i n s t u s o r i g i n a t e d w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n s . . . . T h e y misrepresented the circumstances of the entry of o u r ancestors into Egypt, a n d gave a n equally false a c c o u n t o f t h e i r e x o d u s " (cf. 2 . 6 , 17, 28). A p i o n m a y h a v e e v e n k n o w n t h e biblical a c c o u n t o f t h e E x o d u s , for h e refers to M o s e s ' forty-day s o j o u r n o n M t . S i n a i a n d his giving o f t h e laws t o t h e J e w s (CA 2 . 2 5 ; cf. E x . 2 4 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) . B u t this a w a r e n e s s h a d n o discernible influence o n his version of t h e e x p u l s i o n from E g y p t . 46

4 7

138

ARTHUR J. DROGE

t h e universe. . . . H e picked o u t m e n of t h e m o s t refinement a n d with t h e g r e a t e s t ability t o h e a d t h e e n t i r e n a t i o n , a n d a p p o i n t e d t h e m priests; a n d h e o r d a i n e d t h a t they should o c ­ c u p y themselves with t h e t e m p l e a n d the sacrifices offered t o their G o d . (5) These same m e n h e appointed to be j u d g e s i n all m a j o r d i s p u t e s , a n d entrusted to them the guardianship of t h e laws a n d c u s t o m s . F o r this r e a s o n t h e J e w s n e v e r h a v e a king, a n d a u t h o r i t y over t h e p e o p l e is reg­ ularly vested i n w h i c h e v e r priest is r e g a r d e d as superior t o his colleagues in w i s d o m a n d virtue. T h e y call this m a n t h e high priest, a n d believe t h a t this m a n acts as a messenger t o t h e m of G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s . (6) It is h e , w e a r e told, w h o i n their assemblies a n d o t h e r gatherings a n n o u n c e s w h a t is o r d a i n e d , a n d t h e J e w s a r e so d o c ­ ile i n such m a t t e r s t h a t they i m m e ­ d i a t e l y fall t o t h e g r o u n d a n d d o r e v e r e n c e t o t h e high priest w h e n h e expounds the c o m m a n d m e n t s to t h e m . A t t h e e n d of their laws there is even a p p e n d e d t h e statement: " T h e s e a r e t h e w o r d s t h a t M o s e s h e a r d from G o d a n d declares u n t o t h e J e w s . " T h e i r lawgiver w a s careful also t o m a k e provision for w a r f a r e , a n d r e ­ q u i r e d t h e y o u n g m e n t o cultivate m a n l i n e s s , steadfastness, a n d , g e n e r ­ ally, t h e e n d u r a n c e o f every h a r d ­ ship.

w h o l e b o d y of priests, a n d entrusts to t h e s u p r e m e high priest t h e direc­ tion of t h e o t h e r priests? (186) T h e s e m e n , m o r e o v e r , o w e d their original p r o m o t i o n b y t h e lawgiver t o their high office, n o t t o a n y superiority in wealth o r other accidental advan­ tages. N o , of all his c o m p a n i o n s , t h e m e n t o w h o m h e e n t r u s t e d t h e or­ d e r i n g of divine w o r s h i p as their first charge were those w h o were p r e e m i n e n d y gifted with persuasive elo­ q u e n c e a n d discretion. (187) B u t this c h a r g e further e m b r a c e d a strict su­ p e r i n t e n d e n c e of t h e L a w a n d o t h e r c u s t o m s ; for t h e a p p o i n t e d duties of t h e priests i n c l u d e d g e n e r a l super­ vision, t h e trial of cases of litigation, a n d t h e p u n i s h m e n t of c o n d e m n e d persons. (188) C o u l d there b e a m o r e p i o u s g o v e r n m e n t t h a n that? G o u l d G o d b e m o r e worthily h o n o r e d t h a n b y such a s c h e m e , u n d e r w h i c h r e ­ ligion is t h e e n d a n d a i m o f t h e training of t h e entire c o m m u n i t y , t h e priests a r e e n t r u s t e d with t h e special c h a r g e of it, a n d t h e whole a d ­ m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e state resembles s o m e rite of initiation? (189) Practices w h i c h , u n d e r t h e n a m e of mysteries a n d rites of initiation, o t h e r nations a r e u n a b l e t o observe for b u t a few days, w e m a i n t a i n with delight a n d u n f l i n c h i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r all time.

Josephus' description of the theocracy established by Moses reads like a palimpsest o f Hecataeus' account, with o n e noteworthy differ­ ence. In Hecataeus, Moses' Utopia was limited both geographically and chronologically. It never went beyond the borders of Judaea and it was irrevocably changed w h e n the J e w s fell under Persian and then Greek rule. In Josephus the temporal and spatial horizons have been expanded. Moses' social, political, and religious contributions had a profound civilizing effect o n a universal scale and for all time.

139

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

T o this extent, Josephus' representation of Judaism remained in thrall to the Hecataean model. But Josephus was also acutely aware that the authority and explanatory power of Hecataeus' account had suffered at the hands of his Alexandrian critics. It is a measure of Josephus' grasp of the situation that he sought to repair the model by making Israel assume the role of Hecataean Egypt. Thus can he say in the course of his refutation of Apion, "In their relation to us, Egyptians are swayed by one of two feelings: either they pretend to be our kinsmen in order to gain prestige, or else they drag us into their ranks to share their bad reputation" (2.31). This is a stunning reversal; unthinkable for an Artapanus or even a Philo, for w h o m the connec­ tion to Egypt conferred prestige and pedigree on the Jews, not the other way round. But they, in contrast to Josephus, did not have to contend with the devastating counter-ethnographies of Apion and the others, which by Josephus' time were in wide circulation. That is why Josephus insists much more than any of his Jewish predecessors on the autochthony of the Jews, and in particular on their independ­ ence from Egypt. But the break with Egypt came at a very high price, for it left Josephus without a place to stand. Insofar as the Greeks were willing to concede the greater antiquity of Egypt, as well as their own in­ debtedness to Egyptian civilization, the Jewish connection to Egypt could be exploited by Jewish apologists w h o wished to present the Jews as an ancient people from w h o m the Greeks had also learned. In the histories of Josephus' apologetic predecessors the venerable civilizations of the East, but especially Egypt, played the crucial role of intermediaries in the diffusion of civilization from Moses to the Greeks. But once the Alexandrian expulsion stories acquired an audi­ ence, the Jewish connection to Egypt lost its apologetic value—even more, became an embarrassing and potentially devastating connection. Josephus' radical revision of the Hecataean model required that 48

4 8

F o r t h e influence of t h e A l e x a n d r i a n e x p u l s i o n stories after 4 0 C E a n d b e y o n d t h e limits of E g y p t , see G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, p p . 1 2 4 - 3 2 . H o w t h e s e stories c a m e to J o s e p h u s ' a t t e n t i o n r e m a i n s a m y s t e r y . H e d i d n o t s e e m t o k n o w t h e m while h e w a s w r i t i n g t h e Antiquities, for his a c c o u n t s of M o s e s a n d t h e E x o d u s b e t r a y n o t t h e slightest a w a r e n e s s of t h e m (Ant. 2 . 2 0 1 - 3 4 9 ) . O f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n writers themselves, J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s o n l y M a n e t h o (1.107) a n d A p i o n ( 1 8 . 2 5 7 - 5 9 ) . T h e latter, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , "scurrilously reviled t h e J e w s , asserting, a m o n g o t h e r things, t h a t t h e y n e g l e c t e d to p a y t h e h o n o r s d u e t o t h e e m p e r o r . " B u t t h e r e is n o reference to t h e e x p u l s i o n story. T h a t m e a n s t h a t it m u s t h a v e c o m e t o his

140

ARTHUR J. DROGE

Moses would have to bear the burden of civilizing the world alone, without the assistance of Egypt and the other ancient nations. It also required that Moses be not just an ancient lawgiver, but the most ancient the world had known. Hence the emphasis on chronology in the argument of the Contra Apionem. I take this to be a consequence of Josephus' revision of the Hecataean model, not a response to Greek critics of his Antiquities, as he alleges. N o pagan writer of whom I am aware, not even the most fanatical of the Alexandrian writers named by Josephus, explicitly denied the antiquity of the Jews or doubted that the Jewish genos had been formed by the time "the most re­ nowned of the Greek historians" composed their works. Josephus' reference to "a considerable number" of Greeks who doubted the antiquity of the Jews was a necessary and convenient fiction: neces­ sary because it provided a pretext for his chronological argument in defense of Moses' unparalleled antiquity; and convenient because the relative lateness of Greek culture was an easy target. The real chron­ ological issue was not whether Moses was an ancient framer of laws; this was unanimously conceded. It was that Moses was the first to discover them. A n d from this source all civilization flowed. I w o u l d call T i m e to witness to t h e excellence of o u r lawgiver a n d of the revelation c o n c e r n i n g G o d w h i c h h e has t r a n s m i t t e d to us. A n infinity of t i m e h a s passed since M o s e s , if o n e c o m p a r e s the age in w h i c h h e lived w i t h those of the o t h e r lawgivers. Yet it will b e found t h a t t h r o u g h o u t t h e w h o l e of t h a t p e r i o d n o t m e r e l y h a v e o u r laws stood the test of o u r o w n use, b u t t h e y h a v e to a n ever increasing e x t e n t excited the e m u l a t i o n of all h u m a n k i n d (2.279-80).

Artificiality is the peculiar mark of the Contra Apionem. "Josephus' Judaism was colorless, not false and not trivial, but rhetorical, ge­ neric, and rather unreal," as Momigliano has written. The reason for this was that Josephus' representation of Judaism was controlled by his explicitly apologetic aims, and no doubt influenced by the vicissitudes of his own life. T h e significant religious, political, and legal questions confronting Jews living under empire were not di­ rectly faced, though the Contra Apionem must have been at least an indirect response to real problems in the late first century and not 49

a t t e n t i o n in t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e w r i t i n g of t h e last b o o k s of t h e Antiquities a n d t h e Contra Apionem, t h o u g h w e d o n o t k n o w h o w o r b y w h o m . " W h a t J o s e p h u s D i d N o t S e e , " On Pagans, Jews, and Christians ( M i d d l e t o w n , C T : W e s l e y a n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1987), p . 119. 4 9

JOSEPHUS BETWEEN GREEKS AND BARBARIANS

141

just Buchliteratur. T h e reason for his failure to confront these practical issues more directly, I think, is that it was impossible so long as the Hecataean ethnographic model continued to exercise its influence. It is a measure of Josephus' grasp of the situation that he saw the need to redefine the terms of the debate—to "re-Orient" the historical consciousness of his Greek readers—if the Jews were to remain Jews and yet continue to live in the R o m a n Empire. In the end it was an experiment that failed, or perhaps we should say, an experiment whose time had not yet come. N o t even his coreligionists were persuaded. There is no trace of Josephus' name or writings in Jewish literature prior to the Middle Ages, and while Eusebius tells us that Josephus "was honored by the erection of a statue in the city of the Romans, while the books composed by him were deemed worthy of being placed in the library" {H.E. 3.9.2), still we find no trace of his works except in the De abstinentia of the Neoplatonist Porphyry (4.11-14). Scholars have sometimes suggested that Josephus' writings were used by the R o m a n historians Tacitus and Suetonius, possibly also by the evangelist Luke. Even if these suppositions could be proved true, however, the fact that Josephus is not named implies that he was not really a literary authority for them. It was to the Christians that he owed his survival, and it is certainly one of the ironies of history that Josephus, w h o could still feel confident in ignoring Christianity, should have been used by his Christian epigones to rewrite and reinvent the history of the West. By the mid-second century the tide seems to have turned. "What is Plato," Numenius of Apamea asked, "but Moses speaking Attic Greek." 50

Bibliographical Mote Quotations from the Contra Apionem are from the Loeb Classical Library edition of H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer­ sity Press, 1926). I have occasionally modified Thackeray's transla­ tion if it was not sufficiently precise for my purposes. T. Reinach and L. Blum, Flavius Josephe, Contre Apion (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1930) remains valuable, especially Reinach's annotations. I have learned much from C. Schaublin, "Josephus und die Griechen," Hermes 110

5 0

Q u o t e d b y C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a , Strom. 1.150.4. It is significant t h a t N u m e n i u s n a m e d M o s e s as P l a t o ' s s o u r c e a n d n o t , as o n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d , Z o r o a s t e r .

142

ARTHUR J. DROGE

(1982), pp. 3 1 6 - 4 1 ; S . J . D . Cohen, "History and Historiography in the Contra Apionem of Josephus," in A. Rapoport-Albert (ed.), Essays in Jewish Historiography, SFSHJ 15 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 1-11; and an (as yet) unpublished paper by E. S. Gruen, "The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story," presented earlier this year in the Jewish Studies Workshop at the University of Chicago. O n the "proof from antiquity," see the fine study by P. Pilhofer, PRESBYTERON KREITTON: Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, W U N T 2.39 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1990). Finally, Arnaldo Momigliano's 1931 essay, "Un'apologia del Giudaismo: il 'Contro Apione' di Flavio Giuseppe," now in Terzo Contributo (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1966), pp. 5 1 3 - 5 2 2 , offers a sobering assessment of Josephus' apologetic enter­ prise and its consequences.

POLEMIC A N D APOLOGETIC M E T H O D S O F W R I T I N G I N CONTRA APIONEM 1

ARYEH

KASHER

Tel-Aviv University

Introductory words on the nature of polemics and apologetics Josephus, admittedly, was not the first of the Jewish apologeticists; nevertheless, there can be no doubt that he retains an especially important place among them. Contra Apionem, more than any other of his works, was of this nature. However, it may be seen at first glance that, by contrast to the apologetic writers before him, Josephus in Contra Apionem made great use of both apologetics and polemics, in combination or separately. W e shall soon see that the line which I have drawn between these methods is rather artificial and is, indeed, drawn for reasons of convenience only, as the two were actually interwoven. T h e concept "polemics" derives from the Greek word rcotauxx;, which means war, battle, fight and the like; the verb rcoXeuico, accordingly, means to fight, do battle, make war upon, quarrel, wrangle, etc. "Polemics" is, therefore, a metaphorical use for the con­ cepts argument, dispute, controversy, debate etc., when conducted publicly. In other words, by "polemics" we can refer to a method of argument or collision of ideas, adopted, whether verbally or in writing, by persons convinced of the lightness of their arguments— that is, persons confident in their knowledge on the subjects being debated and sure of their rhetorical ability to persuade their audi­ ence. In this connection, it does not matter whether the audience 2

3

1

T h i s article is i n c l u d e d as a p a r t of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e a u t h o r ' s f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y o n Contra Apionem. All citations f r o m Contra Apionem a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e English t r a n s l a t i o n of H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y , Josephus ( L o e b Classical L i b r a r y ed.), V o l . 1, L o n d o n - C a m b r i d g e M a s s . 1926. See in detail: P . D a l b e r t , Die Theologie der hellenistisch-jüdischen Missionsliteratur unter Ausschluss von Philo und Josephus, H a m b u r g 1954, passim; V . T c h e r i k o v e r , "Jewish A p o l o ­ getic L i t e r a t u r e R e c o n s i d e r e d " , Eos 4 8 (1956), p p . 1 6 9 - 1 9 3 ; E . S c h ü r e r , The History of The Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (eds. G . V e r m e s , F . M i l l a r et al), E d i n b u r g h 1986, U L I , p p . 609ff. Cf. E . Will, C . O r r i e u x , "Prosélytisme Juif"? Histoire d'une erreur, P a r i s 1 9 9 2 , p p . 16ff. 2

3

144

ARYEH KASHER

has already taken a positive or negative stand on the subjects under debate. Polemics are intended, on one hand, to strengthen those who hold similar opinions—i.e. to reinforce the convinced while convinc­ ing the sympathetic, the dubious and the hesitant. O n the other hand, they are also intended to change the opinions of the distant and the opposed (or at least to cast doubt in their minds), and to arouse interest among the indifferent and the uninvolved, with a view to eventually convincing them as well. It should be noted that the study of ancient Jewish polemics is a rather neglected area in modern re­ search, and that two of the pioneer works in this direction are Keeble's thesis and Feldman's important and comprehensive book on the atti­ tudes and interactions between Jews and Gentiles of the GrecoR o m a n world. Even a hasty, superficial glance through Contra Apionem leaves the impression that Josephus' polemics were divided into two forms or methods, one by way of negation and the other by way of affirmation. T h e former method is chiefly characteristic of Book I and the first half of Book II (up to § 150). In this way, Josephus sought to deny, disprove, refute and contradict various hateful libels and anti-Jewish prejudices commonly accepted in Greco-Roman so­ ciety. H e did so by means of several techniques, which we shall discuss in detail below, including the use of argumentation drawn from logic, clever mockery, sarcasm and irony. T h e objective of the second method (namely, the way of affirmation) is to reveal the internal values of Judaism and its spiritual, legal and moral advantage over Hellen­ ism in all areas of life. T h e exposition of the Torah in this part of the treatise reveals Josephus' positive Jewish image as a determined and proud defender of all aspects of Jewish heritage. 4

Apologetics (dcTioXoynxiKfi), on the other hand, is the art of defense, i.e. a method of apology or justification, adopted by a person or group of persons (again, whether verbally or in writing) against attacks or defamation, with a view toward clearing up certain misunder­ standings liable to be misinterpreted and to defend disputed causes which constitute targets for criticism or mockery. T h e word "apolo­ getics" is derived from "apologia" (oc7coA,oy{a), meaning "apology", "justification", "defense" (including the opposite of "prosecution"— K a x n y o p i a ) , namely defense without admitting wrong, etc. Josephus

4

3

K . K e e b l e , A Critical Study of Josephus Contra Apionem, U n p u b l i s h e d M . Phil. Dis­ s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of O x f o r d 1 9 9 1 ; L. H . F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, P r i n c e t o n 1 9 9 3 , p p . 1 3 1 - 1 4 9 .

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

145

himself used the term K a x t i y o p i a more than thirty times and made no less frequent use of the verb &rcoA,oyeo|noci. From the viewpoint of the literary genre and especially from the psychological viewpoint, the use of apologetics may at times be interpreted as an expression of lack of confidence, the manifestation of a position of weakness and inferiority relative to the rival, as if it were an excuse with some regret or as if it were conciliatory in nature. Apologetics, then, is by its very nature a public relations tool, used by those desiring to ex­ plain themselves personally a n d / o r the group to which they belong. From the literary viewpoint, this phenomenon is typical of those w h o lived and received their education in two cultures, but belonged to or identified with one of them, without detaching themselves from the other. Being nurtured by two cultures, apologeticists seek to ex­ plain the foundations of their own culture to the people of the other culture, in order to build bridges of understanding. T h e principles guiding them are those of public relations for its own sake, especially in order to remove errors and misunderstandings, disprove deliber­ ate calumnies and refute prejudices with regard to the culture with which they identify. A n important study lately published considers Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae as an "apologetic history" typical of a genre commonly found in Eastern Hellenistic literature, by contrast to that of the West. 5

6

As, by its very nature, apologetics bears the unmistakable stamp of tendentiousness, it cannot be considered an objective scientific method. True, at times, the apologeticists writing is quite similar to that of scientists, especially when they seek to investigate some truth from a position of absolute intellectual sincerity. This is especially true of serious apologeticists convinced of their own positions, operating with a view to defending certain theories and opinions in which they themselves sincerely believe. O n e could supposedly argue that any scientific or philosophical-academic activity involves a certain amount of apologetics, as such activity combines defense of certain opinions and arguments against the opposed ones. However, apologetics differs from scientific activity in that the former endeavors to propose, in advance, a final, absolute and immutable truth. By contrast, serious 5

5

See K . H . R e n g s t o r f et al. (eds.), A Complete Concordance to Flavins Josephus, L e i d e n 1973, I, p p . 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 (s.v.). See G . E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, L e i d e n - N e w Y o r k - K o l n 1992. 6

146

ARYEH KASHER

scientists are willing to give up outmoded opinions, and even feel a moral obligation to do so. According to real scientists, there is no final truth, as any scientific investigation can change the results of earlier stages of investigation. Apologeticists, on the other hand, can­ not and are not willing to admit mistakes. O n the contrary: they harness all their mental efforts to the defense of their opinions, in order to prove that those opinions fall within the category of abso­ lute and final truth. T h e method of defense and range of arguments used by apologeticists, then, are quite different from those of true scientists. Generally speaking, apologeticists tend to use the method of deduction, which is very convenient for their needs, and at times can be brilliant enough to leave their readers quite impressed. O n the other hand, scientists tend to start with the method of induction, which is based on the compilation of data and scientific experimen­ tation as a preliminary phase, preceding the drawing of scientific conclusions. Admittedly, deduction can serve scientists as a source of inspiration leading to inductive experimentation; accordingly, they do not abandon it entirely. Still, no true scientists worthy of the name will use deduction as the sole basis of their work. As there is usually a direct connection between apologetics and controversial personal or social phenomena in certain circumstances of time and place, and as apologetics is intended to defend persons or groups in respect of their actions or opinions and views, it is often obviously tendentious— one might even say "basely tendentious"—and is therefore even li­ able, in certain cases, to overshadow the genuine desire to discover the truth. This is "cheap" apologetics, which does not hesitate to conceal facts, distort circumstances, and convey partial and inaccu­ rate information. O n the other hand, apologetics may also be viewed in a positive light, as a method which is intended to defend important ideas and which develops theological outlooks in support of a strong, sincere and pure faith. Thus, for example, it can play a considerable role in proving theological hypotheses. Indeed, these were the main motives of Jewish religious apologetics (of which Josephus was one of the most outstanding representatives) in ancient times. Collective (as differentiated from personal) Jewish apologetics de­ veloped in the Hellenistic-Roman era, springing from the encounter 7

7

S e e D . Flusser, s.v. " A p o l o g e t i c s " , Encyclopaedia Hebraica, V (1961), cols. 118ff.; S c h u r e r (n. 2 a b o v e ) , I I I . 1, p p . 594ff.

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

147

with other cultures and religions, on one hand, and the rise of antiSemitism on the other. Both these factors aroused a need for com­ parison and parallelization, out of a desire to prove the unique qualities and virtues of Judaism to other peoples, to wipe out prejudices, to plead its cause and defend its past and present honor, and even to generate propaganda on its behalf. If we analyze Josephus' apologetic method in Contra Apionem, we shall see that, while on one hand it may be considered "cheap" (i.e. negative) apologetics, whose aggres­ sive nature more closely resembles polemics, yet, on the other, it also includes "noble" (i.e. positive) apologetics, intended to offer praise and encomium on the philosophical and religious level. It will be shown below that Josephus chose one method in certain areas and the other method in others. Thus, for example, he pre­ sented the Jewish priesthood by means of the positive method; this was reflected in the idealization of its role, purpose and selection. In referring to the priesthood, he sought not only to offer reliable infor­ mation and to satisfy the intellectual curiosity of his Greco-Roman readers, but, at the same time, to heap all possible praise on the priestly class. Apparently, there were also personal apologetic rea­ sons for his idealistic description of the priests, as, after all, he him­ self was descended from a priesdy family. At times, he switched over instandy from a tone of self-justification to one of crass and arrogant polemics, steeped in venomous, mordant ridicule. H e did so with reference to every subject that had to do with him personally, al­ though, as stated, he refrained—whether for the sake of convenience, or out of fear—from personal and public argument with well-known and influential persons in R o m a n ruling circles. In matters having to do with himself, he could not avoid an apologetic style of writing, although he also attempted, with a not inconsiderable degree of suc­ cess, to prove himself as a master of polemics and rhetoric, capable of moving with relative ease from defense to crushing attack. T o this end, he made rapidly alternating use of both apologetics and polem­ ics. This tendency is obvious, for example, in his defensive justifica­ tion with regard to the writing of the Bellum Judaicum? which he deliberately inserted into his crass criticism of Greek historiography. Similar combinations were adopted by him each time he endeavored 8

10

8

9

10

Contra Apionem, I, 29ff.; I I , 1 8 5 - 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 - 1 9 4 . Op. cit., I, 4 7 - 5 6 . Op. ciL, I, 6ff.

148

ARYEH KASHER

to refute the libels against the Jewish people. This was also the case in his trenchant argument against idolatry, which was often appended to his abundant praises of the Jewish religion and the Torah laws. O n the latter subject, his apologetics was intended to justify the Jews' refusal to take part in the idolatrous ceremonies prevalent in their places of residence—a refusal considered by the Gentiles as an ex­ pression of contempt for their religion and even as evidence of utter atheism (aQeoxr)<;). In my opinion, it is important to take into consideration the fact that, due to the Great Jewish Revolt, Josephus was forced to leave his country, to be subordinate to the Emperors of R o m e and bear their name, to change his loyalties, to bear the shame of guilt for having betrayed his people, to marry a prisoner (against the laws of his people and the laws of marriage applying to the priests), and to suffer unpopularity in the eyes of Jews and non-Jews alike during his stay in R o m e . All he had left was his priestly family tree, which was his greatest pride. Moreover, his priestly status could lend credibility to his historical writing, as, according to him, the priests of Israel were authorized and made responsible, together with the prophets, for writing and preserving the history of the Jewish nation. Another area bearing the stamp of positive apologetics is the utter devotion and readiness for self-sacrifice over the issue of maintaining the precepts and sanctity of the T o r a h . There can be no doubt that, from Josephus' point of view, this involved no small measure of hypocrisy, especially if we take into account his criticism of the Greeks in this matter, and if we note his personal behavior before and after the fall of Jotapata. Positive apologetics can also be found in the comparison of Jewish worship to pagan idolatry. Here Josephus makes a very interesting attempt at presenting in a positive light various phenomena related to the Jews and Judaism, which were considered negative and ri­ diculous by the Gentiles. These include the Jewish tendency not to deal in trade and not to mingle with other nations, the exces­ sive devotion to raising children, the scrupulous adherence to the 11

12

13

14

15

16

11

12

13

14

15

16

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, I, I, I, I, I,

29-37. 42ff., 191ff.; I I , 146, 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 . 224ff. 60ff.; I I , 2 1 6 . 6 1 ; I I , 290ff. 6 0 ; I I , 199fF.

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

17

18

19

149

laws, the refraining from conquest, the dietary laws, the keeping of the Sabbath; and the custom of circumcision. Another interesting and original expression of positive apologetics appears in Josephus' admission to the positive traits of rivals—for example: "While, then, for eloquence and literary ability we must yield the palm to the Greek historians, we have no reason to do so for veracity in the history of antiquity, least of all where the particular history of each separate foreign nation is concerned". According to Josephus, the willingness to admit to certain (unimportant) positive aspects of one's rivals facilitates attack on them in significant and substantive matters. Here is another example: "So far he [Manetho] followed the chronicles"; "So long as Manetho followed the ancient records, he did not go far wrong". Lysimachus got a similar credit by saying that "there was reasonable ground", etc. And, finally: "Demetrius Phalereus, the elder Philo, and Eupolemus are excep­ tional in their approximation to the truth, and [their errors] may be excused on the ground of their inability to follow quite accurately the meaning of our records". This passage was meant to impress Josephus' readers with his objective approach and the credibility of his writing, as even his rivals receive compliments from him. As stated above, the other side of apologetics is negative in its approach. Such writing exhibits a typically aggressive tone which, paradoxical as it may seem, results from a feeling of weakness. This aggressive writing, in other words, is an integral part of an apologetic defense. It may therefore be said that, in such a case, the difference between apologetic and polemic writing becomes blurred. Positive apologetics is generally restrained, balanced (at least theoretically), considered and concise. Negative apologetics, on the other hand, is characterized by aggression, decisiveness, dogmatism and rigidity. Despite its extremely aggressive attacks on its rivals, it also (indi­ rectly) reflects the main objectives of the defensive, which, in the 20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, 190ff.; I I , 167ff., etc. I, 6 2 . I I , 173ff. I, 2 1 2 ; I I , 2Iff. I I , 137. I, 2 7 . I, 2 2 9 . I, 2 8 7 ; cf. I I , 104. I, 3 1 8 . I, 2 1 8 .

150

ARYEH KASHER

case at hand, are the Jewish people, the Jewish religion and Jewish historiography, including that written by Josephus himself. 27

Motives, objectives and target audience 28

According to Bilde, as the axis of Contra Apionem is the debate between the Jews and Greek culture in general, it is necessary to ascertain the motives for its writing in this area. In Josephus' eyes, that debate is also reflected on his personal plane and, to be more precise, is related to the criticism of his work by Greek authors who rejected the reliability of his writing in Antiquitates Judaicae. This is also the case concerning the criticism aimed at the reliability of his treatise Bellum Judaicum which should also be examined in a broader con­ textual framework. A hint of this attitude may be found in his own criticism of Greek historiography. In the opening of Bellum Judaicum he notes in plain words that since the hatred of Jews was among the causes which led some Greek historians to misinterpret the facts, his goal was not only limited to the refutation of their versions, but was aimed to offer a whole counter-description instead. In Antiquitates Judaicae he noted once again that the hatred of Israel was the main reason for his writing. T o follow Bilde's attractive and convincing opinion, the hostility and debate between Josephus and Greek histo­ rians was considered by Josephus himself as but a single facet of the overall hostility between Jews and Greeks in ancient times—or, to be more precise, only its historiographic reflection. According to his conception, the contrast between Jewish and Greek historiography is only one aspect of an even broader system of contrasts which pre­ vailed between Greek historiography and that of the Eastern peoples. For this reason, feels Bilde, Contra Apionem should have been given a more appropriate tide, such as Against the Greeks, or, alternatively, In Defense of Judaism 29

30

31

32

33

2 7

S e e , e.g., op. at., I, 6 - 5 9 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 6 ; I I , 236ff., etc. P . Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, his Works, and their Importance, Sheffield 1 9 8 8 , p . 118. S e e Contra Apionem I, 1-2 a n d cf. I, 5 4 , 127; I I , 136, 2 8 7 . Op. cit., I, 4 6 - 5 6 . Op. cit., I, 6 - 4 6 ; cf. also Antiquitates Judaicae, I, 1-4; Bellum Judaicum, I, 1-3, 6 - 8 . Antiquitates Judaicae, X I V , 187; X V , 1 7 4 - 1 7 5 . Bilde (n. 2 9 a b o v e ) , p . 1 1 3 . 2 8

2 9

30

31

32

3 3

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

151

The objectives of Josephus' writing were undoubtedly dictated by the motives noted above; in the following discussion, we shall see that his writing methods were also affected by those motives. In m y opinion, the objectives may be reduced to three main groups: polemical (personal and national); apologetic (personal and national); and general propaganda in praise of the Jewish people, its legislators, laws and faith. The literary and methodological nature of the polemical and apologetic writing will be addressed below. In my opinion, the various objectives also become evident through the process of defining the target audience of readers; to that end, we shall now attempt to draw direct and indirect information from Josephus' own words. Be­ fore going into detail, it should be noted that Sterling justly believed that the target audience of Antiquitates Judaicae, whose goals were at least partly similar to those of Contra Apionem, was composed of three main groups: Greek readers, R o m a n readers and Jewish readers. We shall see below that it is not only possible to distinguish these subdivisions with reference to Contra Apionem, but also to propose more defined characteristics for each of them. 34

A. The libelers of Jews in Josephus' day. These are alluded to at the very beginning of the treatise. T h e reference is to the enemies of Israel who disseminated deliberate written or verbal calumnies against the Jewish people. Admittedly, Josephus did not expressly mention the name of any such person who was active in his day and against whom he could aim his treatise. There can, however, be no doubt that the opening passage was directed against such persons—espe­ cially as it would have been improbable for Josephus to declare the intentions of his polemical writing for stylistic effect alone. In my opinion, Contra Apionem was intended to debate with the followers of Apion in R o m a n society—such as Tacitus, for instance. T h e latter was active in the first half of the second century and held several of Apion's opinions, which he had directly or indirectly picked up from his malicious calumnies. Other anti-Semite contemporary authors of Josephus were Frontinus, Quintilian, Martial, Damocritus, Nicarchus, Epictetus, Plutarch, Juvenal and probably some m o r e . It is quite 35

36

3 4

Sterling (n. 6 a b o v e ) , p p . 2 9 7 - 3 0 8 . See e.g. Contra Apionem I, 2 ~ 3 . F o r details see M . S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 1980), n o s . 2 2 9 - 2 3 1 , 2 3 8 - 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 - 2 7 2 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 5 - 3 0 1 etc. 3 5

3 6

I—II ( 1 9 7 4 ;

152

ARYEH KASHER

possible that Josephus refrained from direct argument with such persons in the R o m a n society of his age, or even from naming them, out of either convenience or cowardice. As for convenience, it may be assumed that writing on the spiritual plane held an important advantage, as it could give a general and objective nature to his po­ lemics, while at the same time avoiding inconvenient personal clashes with personages of status and influence in the R o m a n public. As for cowardice, it may be argued that Josephus exhibited this character­ istic on other occasions of his career as well. W e cannot discard the possibility that he was just not brave enough to speak out against persons belonging to the elite of R o m a n society, especially if such persons were in any way close to the Emperor's court or the circles of scholarly persons in his day. Josephus contented himself, there­ fore, with generalized allusions to their stature without naming names; see, e.g., "I propose, in the first place, briefly to reply to those critics w h o endeavour to prove", etc., and below, "to show the utter ab­ surdity of the calumnies of the traducers of our race". O n another occasion, he similarly stresses that one of his objectives was "to deprive our jealous enemies of even this pretext for controversy"; "None but the most contentious of critics, I imagine, could fail to be con­ tent with the arguments already adduced"; "But since our accusers expect to confute us by comparison of the rival religions, it is impos­ sible to remain silent", etc.; "I have given an exact account of our laws and constitution in my previous work on our Antiquities; . . . my purpose . . . was . . . to prove that the authors who have maligned us have made a barefaced attack on truth itself. I have, I think, in the present work adequately fulfilled the promise made at the outset." Moreover, Josephus' reference to the enemies of Israel in his day is intended, in my opinion, to provide the group appellations derived from the first names of former calumniators such as "the Lysimachuses and Molons and other writers of that class"; "the Apions and Molons and all w h o delight in lies and abuse". 37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Contra Apionem, I, 5 8 - 5 9 . Op. cit., I, 7 2 . Op. cit., I, 160. Op. cit., I I , 2 3 8 . Op. cit., I I , 287ff. Op. cit., I I , 2 3 6 . Op. cit, I I , 2 9 5 .

153

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

B. Readers adversely affected by the calumnies who doubted, or began to doubt, the antiquity of the Jews as proposed by Josephus in his earlier work, Antiquitates Judaicae. According to Josephus, their error— which he sought to correct—resulted from the fact that they did not trust the writings of non-Greek peoples as a matter of principle. At the very beginning of his words, he emphasizes that his writing is intended not only to expose those writers w h o did not ignore Jewish history, but to bring them "to the notice of any w h o either are, or feign to be, ignorant of them". These passages are self-explanatory, indicating that he was indeed aware of the fact that many had been adversely affected by the arguments of the Jew-haters. 44

45

46

C. Innocent persons devoid of knowledge concerning Jews and J u ­ daism, who did not know the facts, are another group whose exist­ ence may be deduced from that stated above. It may be understood that Josephus believed that this group could be drawn to hate Jews, and that, in an effort to prevent this, he intended to supply it with authorized information. D . Those interested in the topic and those seeking to broaden their education, or those with little real knowledge about Jews, w h o found the truth difficult to understand. Josephus' objective vis-a-vis that group, then, was not only informative but also didactic. In other words, he wanted them to become conversant in matters pertaining to Jews and Judaism, while preserving a positive and sympathetic approach. Bilde believes that the main goals of Josephus' writing, and espe­ cially those embodied in his propaganda and praise of Jews and Judaism, were directed toward the supportive circles of Greco-Roman society. Even his polemics and apologetics were intended for those circles, whether in order to supply them with convincing explana­ tions in defense of Judaism against attack and defamation, or to strengthen their spirit and their faith. According to Bilde, Contra Apionem is to be primarily considered as a "work of missionary literature, a work of apologetic and propaganda of 'hortatory' nature, primarily 47

48

44

45

4 6

47

4 8

Op. ciL, I, 2 - 3 , 1 6 1 . Op. cit., I, 5. Cf. also op. cit., I I , 145. Op. ciL, see I, 3 , 5, 2 9 , 129; I I , 2 2 8 , 2 9 6 . B ü d e (n. 2 9 a b o v e ) , p p . 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 .

154

ARYEH KASHER

addressed to the 'Gentiles', who were interested in the Jewish faith, in an effort to attract them even closer to Judaism as 'God-fearing' or actual proselytes". In my opinion, this view cannot be unreservedly accepted, if only because of the use of the word "missionary", so foreign to the nature of Judaism. Josephus cannot be suspected of having desired to encourage proselytism among the Gentiles. At most, I feel he sought to arouse sympathy for Judaism and to refute prejudices and deliberate calumnies by way of persuasion and expla­ nation. It is certainly beyond all doubt that he was well aware of the Emperors' policy on conversion in his day; it is enough to mention the policy of the Emperor Domitian, which viewed this phenome­ non as an unsettling undermining of the foundations of R o m a n society. I therefore have my doubts whether Josephus would have dared to provoke the R o m a n authorities in such a sensitive matter as this. I feel that Bilde's idea is too "Christian" in its basic concept, and could quite probably have been affected—whether consciously or not—by the N e w Testament's attitude toward the scribes and Pharisees, w h o spared no efforts in crossing land and sea to make even one proselyte for Israel. As I see it, we must make a distinction between "missionary" activity—which, by nature, is a well-established and well-organized undertaking—and the propaganda effect of liter­ ary writing. Contra Apionem, in my own opinion, is more suitable to the second category, just like the Epistle of Aristeas and many of the writings of Philo of Alexandria, which also spoke out in praise of the Jewish people, its laws, customs and religious beliefs. 49

50

51

52

Josephus sought to offer his Greco-Roman readers explanations in praise of Judaism, in terms acceptable to them. H e made efforts to present it as a clear and true philosophy, admired by the greatest of Greek thinkers. N o t in vain did he strenuously criticize the concept of idolatry, so c o m m o n throughout the Greek world, in that context, while exalting, by contrast, that of Jewish monotheism and empha­ sizing the skepticism toward idolatry c o m m o n among educated per­ sons and philosophers. This sort of writing, in my opinion, is pure 53

54

4 9

T h e subject will b e discussed in m y f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y to Contra Apionem, II, 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 . S e e C a s s i u s D i o , 6 7 , 14, 1-2; S u e t o n i u s , Domitianus, 15, 1. Matthew, 2 3 : 1 5 . F e l d m a n (n. 4 a b o v e ) , p p . 288ff. Contra Apionem, I I , 239ff. Op. cil, I I , 2 5 5 . 5 0

51

5 2

53

5 4

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

155

propaganda, intended to provide explanations and to convince its readers. This writing is solely confined to the literary-academic plane, of the type common to Jewish Hellenistic literature such as the Epistle of Aristeas and the writings of Philo of Alexandria as stated above. The trend of his discussion of the Jews' devotion to their laws and their religion, which on various occasions went as far as willingness to die for the faith, is also appropriate to such literature. T h e readi­ ness to die for any lofty ideal, or to put one's life in danger for the sake of one's faith, were known to be viewed by the Greeks as explicit criteria for true philosophical behavior, as illustrated by the shining example of Socrates. It seems as if Josephus advocated the idea that the entire Jewish nation was shaped in this model. Moreover, his comments on the dispersion of Jewish law and ideas throughout the world were meant to emphasize the worldwide recognition of their value and their philosophical character. At the same time, his dis­ cussion of conversion to Judaism chiefly focused on the complete integration of converts into Jewish society, with a view to denying the frequent charges of separatism, xenophobia and misanthropy leveled against the J e w s . At first glance, this would appear to be an apologetic attitude; yet, at the same time, it is also one based on propaganda, as it is intended to convince readers that Jewish sepa­ ratism and isolationism were meant to protect Judaism against noxious outside influences. N o t in vain did he emphasize, in this context, the xenophobia and intolerance of the Lacedaemonians (Spartans) and Athenians toward foreigners and their rites. 55

56

57

58

E. Jewish readers belonging to a small group of favorites of the Roman administration. These included e.g., the descendants of the Herodian family and those close to them, who could use Contra Apionem as a guide in their debates with the enemies of Israel and as a manual of instruction in the defense of the Jewish people and its values. Admit­ tedly, nowhere did Josephus expressly write that this work was ad­ dressed to those readers; nonetheless, this can apparently be inferred from what he wrote concerning his book Bellum Judaicum: "[Many other copies] I sold to a large number of my compatriots, persons

55

56

57

58

Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, 4 2 - 4 4 , 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 ; I I , 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 , 2 3 2 - 2 3 6 . II, 123, 282ff. II, 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 8 2 - 2 8 6 . II, 2 5 7 - 2 6 2 .

156

ARYEH KASHER

well versed in Greek learning, among w h o m were Julius Archelaus, the most venerable Herod, and the most admirable King Agrippa himself". Josephus probably hoped that, when such Jews came into contact with the elite of Roman society, they would be able to spread the message of Contra Apionem and to contribute to the formulation of a more positive Jewish image within their social environment. 59

F. Government and administrative circles throughout the Roman empire. As alluded to in the previous paragraph, there are reason­ able grounds to assume that Contra Apionem was intended to prevent the R o m a n authorities and the governing circles of Hellenistic cities throughout the R o m a n empire from being dragged into spreading the malicious calumnies against the Jews or derogating from their legal and political rights. His words on the rights of the Jews in Alexandria may be considered as directed to that end, especially as the status of the Jews in that city was in the nature of a model for most communities of the R o m a n empire. There was reason to fear that the Jewish War against the Romans and its spin-offs in the Diaspora would have negative effects. 60

G. Jews with a Hellenistic education throughout the Greco-Roman world. These are not alluded to at all in Contra Apionem. However, despite the silence, it may be reasonably assumed that the treatise could have served them as a guide in their arguments with enemies of the Jews, wherever the latter were likely to be encountered. Troiani sought to argue that Josephus intended his treatise principally for such Jews, and not necessarily for Gentiles. Admittedly, I share Feldman's reservations concerning this hypothesis; yet, at the same time, I believe that there is still some sense in it, and some grounds to believe that Jews of this type were included among the target audience of readers of Contra Apionem. T h e fact that, in later genera­ tions, the Christians made use of this work in their arguments with various pagan authors (such as that of Origenes vs. Celsus) may in61

62

63

59

Op. ciL, I, 5 1 . Op. ciL, I I , 33ff. (esp. 39); cf. Antiquitates Judaicae, X I X , 2 7 9 , 2 8 6 , 2 8 8 , 2 9 1 , 3 0 4 , 3 0 6 ; A . K a s h e r , The Jews of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, T ü b i n g e n 1985, esp. p p . 233ff., 262fF. Cf. e.g. p a r a g r a p h E a b o v e . S e e L. T r o i a n i , " I lettori delle A n t i c h i t ä g i u d a i c h e di G i u s e p p e . Prospettive e p r o b l e m i " , Athenaeum 6 4 , (1986), p p . 3 4 3 - 3 5 3 . F e l d m a n (n. 4 a b o v e ) , p . 5 0 2 , n . 2 9 . 60

61

6 2

6 3

157

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

dicate the existence of a parallel, but earlier, phenomenon between Jews and pagans, from which we may deduce that Contra Apionem could have served as a sort of "Guide to the Perplexed" for the Jewish debaters.

The personal dimension Let us now refer to Josephus' methods and techniques of writing as reflected in Contra Apionem, by which he endeavored to convince a wide variety of readers to accept his own personal messages as well as his religious and national ones.

A. Self-praise 5

It is quite illustrative that Josephus personal apologetics in Contra Apionem appears to have always been related, whether directly or indirectly, to his historiographic writing and its credibility. This is reflected in various ways, such as: emphasizing his credibility by a note or quote from his sources, giving explanations and justification, emphasizing his logical way of thinking, and especially self-praise. These tendencies are obvious whenever he writes directly in the first person, and a great many examples of this may be given. As a general rule, his self-praise is open, if we may judge, for example, from his comments on his priestly descent. However, it is some­ times done indirectly and latendy as well—for example, in the course of defaming the Greek historiographers, he "casually" slips in com­ pliments intended for himself. Furthermore, covert self-praise may even be detected in the fact that he dared to defame such famous Greek historiographers as Herodotus, Thucydides and others, w h o he claimed were trenchantly criticized even in the Greek world. 64

65

66

67

68

6 4

See e.g. Contra Apionem, I, 1-5, 19, 4 7 - 5 6 , 6 9 - 7 0 , 112, 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 , 183, 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 , 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 , 2 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 3 0 3 ; II, 1-2, 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , 143, 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 - 1 5 1 , 154, 156, 168, 170, 2 2 6 , 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 , 2 9 6 . J o s e p h u s ' self-praise w a s q u i t e o p e n , t h e s t a t e m e n t s o n his priestly lineage (I, 3 0 , 3 6 , 54). Op. cit., I, 3 0 , 3 6 , 5 4 . Op. cit., I, 6 - 4 6 , 5 7 . Op. cit., I, 4 7 - 5 7 . Op. cit., I, 1 7 - 1 8 . 65

66

67

68

1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 134, 155, 4 , 8, 3 7 , 5 9 , 7 9 , 8 1 , 231, 254, 262, 276, as m a y j u d g e d from

158

ARYEH KASHER

B. Emphasizing involvement in Roman society The fact that all of Josephus' treatises were written, not for the masses, but for a rather restricted circle of intellectuals, is extremely impor­ tant. His involvement in the affluent circles of R o m a n government and higher-class R o m a n society, of which he boasted in Contra Apio­ nem, served his important objective of impressing and persuading his readers. T h e mention of one of the renowned intellectuals of Rome, Epaphroditus —and, even more so, the dedication of the book to him, whether out of flattery or sincere personal friendship and gratitude—were intended to pave his way to the hearts of his poten­ tial readers. In fact, the decision to address Epaphroditus directly gave Contra Apionem a personal literary framework, by making him a kind of partner (albeit a passive one) in all the arguments raised by Josephus. T h e mention of various descendants of the Herodian dynasty was similarly intended to confirm the credibility of his writ­ ing, among both R o m a n and Jewish readers. Even more important, of course, is the mention of the emperors, w h o m Josephus invokes as "witnesses" to his veracity. This fact was especially important in the reality of the R o m a n Empire, in which the emperor stood at the apex of the political and legal pyramid. From Josephus' point of view, this validated his reliability as a hu­ man being, a writer and a historian, and thereby met his apologetic and polemic needs in the most efficient manner possible. 69

70

71

72

73

C. Giving the impression of an educated man Josephus claimed to be, and therefore endeavored to give the im­ pression of being, an educated man well-versed in Greek and inter­ national culture. Besides the fact that he truly thought of himself in those terms, he apparently intended to use this pretension as a means of convincing his readers; after all, an educated person is supposedly more reliable and more convincing, due to his broad education and considerable knowledge. O n e time-tested way of making an impres6 9

S e e , e.g., op. cit., I, 5 0 - 5 1 . H i s identity will b e discussed at l e n g t h in m y f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y to Contra Apionem, I, 1. S e e t h e o p e n i n g a n d closing p a s s a g e s , as well as t h e links b e t w e e n t h e sections of Contra Apionem, I, 1, 6 9 ; I I , 1, 2 9 6 ; cf. also Vita, 4 3 0 . Op. cit., I, 5 1 - 5 2 . Op. cit., I, 4 8 - 5 1 . 7 0

71

72

73

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

159

sion is reflected in the mention of renowned writers and poets, phi­ losophers and thinkers, historians and legislators, and so forth. T h e gallery of names includes, in addition to the collective names (such as the "Attidographers", the "logographers", the "Indian philosophers" or the "Calans", and the "Stoics"), more than seventy names of in­ dividuals, some of w h o m are known to us only from his writings. Indeed, the following assemblage of names (listed below more or less in the order of their appearance in the text) is impressively volumi­ nous: Epaphroditus, Cadmus, Homer, Hellanicus, Acusilaus, Hesiod, Ephorus, Timaeus, Herodotus, Antiochus of Syracuse, Philistus, Callias, the Attidographers, the historians of Argos, Thucydides, D r a c o , Peisistratus, Manetho, Dius, Menandros of Ephesus, Berossus, Philostratus, Megasthenes, Pythagoras, Hermippus of Smyrna, Calliphon, Theophrastus, Choerilus of Samos, Clearchus of Soli, Hyperochides, Aristotle, the Indian (or Calan) philosophers, Hecataeus of Abdera, Hieronymus of Cardia, Theophilus, Theodotus, Agatharchides of Cnidus, Mnaseas of Patara, Aristophanes, Hermogenes, Euhemerus, Conon, Zophyrion, Demetrius of Phalerum, Philo the Elder, Eupolemus, Philocrates, Theopompus, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, Apion, Andreas, Aristeas, Posidonius of Apamea, Apollonius Molon, Polybius, Strabo, Nicolaus of Damascus, Timagenes, Castor, Apollodorus, Socrates, Zenon, Cleanthes, Lycurgus, Solon, Zaleucus of Locri, Minos, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, Plato, the Stoics, Diagoras of Melos, Pro­ tagoras, Anacharsis.

D . Developing an intimate relationship with his readers 1. Flattering the readers By giving compliments to his readers, Josephus sought to win them over and ally them to himself. Following are several examples: "It would be superfluous for me to point out to readers better informed than myself"; "Berossus . . . familiar in learned circles"; "None but the most contentious of critics, I imagine, could fail to be content with the arguments already adduced" "a fact of which, I imagine, all habitual readers of history are aware"; "by men of sound judgement 74

75

76

77

74

75

76

77

Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, I, I, I,

16. 129. 160. 220.

160

ARYEH KASHER 78

their depravity is severely condemned"; "Fools must be refuted, not by argument, but by facts"; "Who, in fact, is there among the ad­ mired sages of Greece w h o has not censured . . ."; "Justly do these tales merit the severe censure which they receive from their intellec­ tual leaders"; and the like. 79

80

81

2. Giving the readers incentives and intellectual stimulus to examine certain issues more profoundly Josephus sought, on a number of occasions, to give his readers an intellectual stimulus which would prompt them to make a thorough study of matters on which he did not intend to spend much time in Contra Apionem, by additional perusal of the writings of various au­ thors, including his own. Several typical passages are cited here: "For such inconsistency many other causes might, possibly be found, if one cared to look for them; "Further information can be obtained, if desired, from the book itself; I forbear to quote more than is nec­ essary"; "But I have given enough evidence from Hecataeus; any w h o care to pursue the subject can easily peruse his book". 82

83

84

3. Involving the readers in the difficulties, planning and submission of the writing T h e method is intended to create a feeling of closeness, on one hand, and, on the other, to guide the readers to the desired channels. Fol­ lowing are several examples: "My desire to expose the levity of those w h o profess to write history has compelled me to digress". This remark was, of course, intended to win the hearts of his readers, involve them in the difficulties of his writing, and give them the feeling that Josephus was their ally. A similar tendency underlies the follow­ ing example: "I have still to deal with one of the topics proposed at the beginning of this work". T h e same applies to this passage: "Be­ fore proceeding to show the manifest absurdity and untruthfulness of his [i.e. Manetho's] statements, I will make one preliminary observa85

78

79

8 0

81

82

8 3

8 4

85

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit, cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, 2 2 2 . I I , 102. II, 239. II, 242. I, 19. I, 182. I, 2 0 5 . I, 5 7 .

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

161

tion, which bears on the replies to be made later on to other au­ thors"; "the next witness I shall cross-examine is Chaeremon"; "However, it would, I think, be foolish to spend more time in refut­ ing authors w h o refute each other. T o have left refutation to others would have shown more decency"; "I will next introduce Lysimachus. H e brings up the same themes as the writers just mentioned, the mendacious story of the lepers and cripples . . ."; "This book, how­ ever, having already run to a suitable length, I propose at this point to begin a second, in which I shall endeavour to supply the remain­ ing portion of my subject". Book II of Contra Apionem also contains a great many such examples. 86

87

88

89

90

E. Personal insults and abuses against Jew haters Anyone perusing Contra Apionem will quickly discover that Josephus directed quite a number of forceful and crass insults against the enemies of Israel who fabricated malicious libels against his people. There are reasonable grounds to think that he was well aware of this polemic method, which is in the nature of rhetoric. Even Aristotle alludes to this device, according to which anyone wishing to attack a certain matter or statement would do well to determine w h o made the statement or was responsible for the matter, and then to defame that person to the point of utter disqualification. According to his advice, it is both proper and worthwhile "to accuse, on our part, anyone who accuses us, as it is vanity to think that the words of an untrustworthy accuser are trustworthy". In my estimation, Josephus adopted this method intentionally, and it should not be ascribed to an emotional outburst as the result of any specific quarrel or event. In my opinion, he truly believed in the content of his insults. More­ over, he felt that his determined use of such expressions would prevent his readers from refraining to take a stand vis-a-vis those insulted by him. In other words, he felt that this would force the readers to choose between two attitudes: acceptance of his views, or 91

86

Op. ciL, I, 2 5 2 . Op. ciL, I, 2 8 8 . Op. ciL, I, 3 0 3 . Op. ciL, I, 3 0 4 Op. ciL, I, 3 2 0 . Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1 4 1 ; S e e H . P e r l m a n , Mamlekhet ha-Rethorica—Rethorica Ha'ala'at Thrown, J e r u s a l e m 1984 ( H e b r e w ) , p p . 1 0 - 1 1 , 7 8 , 8 4 . 87

8 8

8 9

9 0

91

ve-

162

ARYEH KASHER

utter rejection. His determined use of insults was apparendy also based on the desire to exploit a psychological effect, which was intended to guide his readers to cast doubt on the reliability of the insulted par­ ties and to lead them to the conclusion that the insults were justified. This is especially true with respect to personages who were also vili­ fied in other sources; Apion, in fact, may serve as a typical example, having been reviled by m a n y . This being the case, we cannot rule out the possibility that Josephus adopted the "ready-made" insults of others. T h e exploitation of the psychological effect is especially obvi­ ous in the following passage: "Yet, since most people are . . . charmed by abuse . . . I think it incumbent upon me not to pass over without examination even this author [i.e. Apion] . . . For I observe, on the other hand, that people in general also have a habit of being in­ tensely delighted when one w h o has been the first to malign another has his own vices brought home to him". T h e more c o m m o n insults directed against the malicious writers are the word "liar" and its synonyms; Manetho, Chaeremon, Lysimachus and A p i o n are accused of everything from "mendacity" to "invention" to the propagation of "nonsense and lies". Ignorance, stupidity, idiocy and mindlessness are character traits insultingly as­ cribed to Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus and Apion. But the last is also treated to additional, unique insults, some of which are excep­ tionally picturesque. His work is described as "buffoonery" and he himself is called "a man of low character and a charlatan to the end of his days"; his writing is deemed "replete with the cruelty of impudence"; he is said to have been "gifted with the mind of an ass and the impudence of a d o g " and, in another passage, is la­ beled a "pack-ass"; and is eventually dismissed as "a low charlatan, whose life was as dissolute as his language". The insults in Contra Apionem were also intended to undermine his scholarly reputation as 92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

9 2

M o r e details will b e discussed in m y f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y to Contra Apionem,

II, 3 . 9 3

Op. cit. I I , 4 - 5 . Contra Apionem, I, 2 6 7 , 2 8 7 , 2 9 3 , 3 2 0 ; II, 1 2 - 1 4 , 8 8 , 115, 122, 124, 144, 2 9 5 ; cf. also I, 4, 2 5 2 . Op. cit., I I , 3 , 8 8 , 102, 145; cf. also I, 2 2 6 ; II, 2 3 6 . Op. cit, I I , 3 ; cf. I I , 136. Op. cit., I I , 9 7 . Op. cit., I I , 8 5 . Op. cit., I I , 115. Op. cit, I I , 136. 94

95

96

97

9 8

9 9

100

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

163

a linguist. T o this end, Josephus adopted the term "grammarian", in a sort of euphemistic sarcasm, which was, of course, intended to minimize his image and guide readers to cast doubt on his qualifica­ tions and thus on his evidence and the worth and credibility of his opinions. In the framework of the insults, we cannot ignore one of the means most frequendy used by Josephus in order to refute the malicious calumnies against the Jews: defaming the authors of those calumnies in respect of their low class and base origin. A n example of this is the exposure of the Egyptian origin of both Manetho and A p i o n . According to Josephus, their Egyptian heritage was the principal reason for their hatred of the J e w s ; this belief, as we know, was also held by Philo of Alexandria. Both Philo and Josephus indubitably profited by the fact that the Egyptians were considered in R o m a n public opin­ ion as a quarrelsome people, hostile toward the R o m a n government. In addition, Josephus also subjected his personal rivals to crass and contemptuous criticism, to the point of actual insults. It is also important to note that the defamation of persons and their character was one of the better-known rhetorical tactics adopted in the courts of law. Indeed, we shall soon see that Josephus adopted a technique of writing which resembled legal debates in the law courts. The tactics of invalidation of evidence (improbatio testium) was very common in R o m a n jurisprudence. It is well known that books were written, such as Quintilian's Institutio oratorio, ("Education or "Shaping" of an Orator"), containing rules of rhetoric for the use of various kinds of orators and attorneys. A fascinating study by J. H. Lewy shows how these tactics were used in practice by Cicero as an attor­ ney in the courts of Rome; one of those cases even had to do with Jews. It is quite reasonable to assume that these facts were well known to Josephus. 101

102

103

104

105

101

See op. cit., I I , 3 , 12, 14, 15, 2 6 , 109. Op. cit., I, 7 3 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 7 , 2 5 1 ; II, 28ff., 3 4 , 8 1 , 8 5 , 138, 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 ; cf. also I I , 6 6 - 6 7 , 6 9 - 7 0 , 128, 132, 1 3 7 - 1 4 2 . See op. cit, I, 2 2 3 - 2 2 6 , 2 5 1 . Op. cit., I, 4 6 , 5 3 , 5 6 , 5 7 . J . H . L e w y , Studies in Jewish Hellenism, J e r u s a l e m 1960 ( H e b r e w ) , p p . 7 9 - 1 1 4 , especially p p . 8 2 , 8 9 , 90ff. 102

1 0 3

104

1 0 5

164

ARYEH KASHER

The technique of writing in Contra Apionem

A. Brief concise writing O n several occasions, Josephus stated that he preferred brevity in writing in order to avoid getting into topics which he preferred to leave o u t . H e further argued that concise writing was an effective way to avoid distracting readers with trivialities. At the same time, it should be noted that when he himself feared for his image as a his­ torian, he did not hesitate to digress from the main body of his lecture in order to expound to his readers on his merits as a historian. Brief, concise writing may have been an effective literary figleaf for Josephus, enabling him to conceal the paucity of his knowledge and his limited access to the writings of the authors with whom he so frequently engaged in debate, while at the same time consciously avoiding direct, full quotation of the evidence offered by them. This is especially true with reference to Apollonius Molon, Posidonius of Apamea, and Apion. In my opinion, no c o m m o n conclusion can be reached concerning these three writers. Some learned scholars now think that Josephus was not familiar with Posidonius' writings at all. At the same time, it is difficult to believe that this is absolutely true with respect to the writings of Apollonius Molon and Apion. Con­ cerning those two, it is more reasonable to think that he consciously and intentionally refrained from quoting any whole passage of theirs. This may be due to his unwillingness to be another mouthpiece for their venomous calumnies, or because he was aware that their writ­ ing contained arguments based on half-truths which he found hard to cope with. As he did not wish to write from a position of weak­ ness, he decided to treat the content of their writings in a general manner, and to quote them selectively according to his own needs. This decision seems to have entailed an important advantage for him, as it enabled him to focus on such central issues as the blood libel, the fable of the ass-worship, and the civic status and rights of the Jews of Alexandria and other cities in the Diaspora. 106

107

108

1 0 6

S e e e.g. Contra Apionem, I, 3 , 2 9 , 5 8 , 1 8 3 , 2 5 1 . Op. cit., I, 4 6 - 5 6 , a n d especially I, 5 7 . See e.g. M . S t e r n , " T i m a g e n e s of A l e x a n d r i a as a s o u r c e to t h e H i s t o r y of t h e H a s m o n a e a n K i n g d o m " , in: Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Period, S t u d i e s in H o n o r of S h m u e l Safrai (eds. I. G a f n i , A. O p p e n h e i m e r , M . S t e r n ) , J e r u s a l e m 1 9 9 3 , p p . 4 , 13. 107

1 0 8

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

165

B. Writing in the first person Writing in the first person—or, more precisely, in a combination of the first person singular ("I") and the first person plural ("we")— seems to be one of the methods best liked by Josephus. As we shall see below, the rapid switch back and forth from the singular to the plural was intended to give his writing a special dimension with an exceptional power of persuasion. Writing (or speaking) in the first person plural can emphasize the factor of empathy, as it stresses the relationship between the writer or speaker and the subject, by aban­ doning the focus on self in favor of an entire group of people which the writer/speaker terms "we". T h e mixture of first person singular and first person plural originates in a form of pluralis maiestatis, and can indicate that the writer/speaker has internalized a controversial subject which arouses general public interest. In this way, Josephus could portray himself as an injured individual afraid for his personal image, but at the same time, as an injured individual belonging to a large group—which, in this case, is the Jewish people, afraid for its image among the nations of the w o r l d . 109

C. Citation or mention of supporting external historical sources The reference here is to two types of sources: (a) treatises written by non-Greek authors whose reliability was commonly accepted by the historians of the Greco-Roman world; (b) treatises written by Greek authors, which were extremely important to Josephus, especially given the fact that the Greco-Roman world included a great many persons who did not trust non-Greek sources. 110

111

1 0 9

As t h e r e a r e t o o m a n y e x a m p l e s , I shall n o t e only t h o s e cases in w h i c h J o s e p h u s u s e d t h e first p e r s o n p l u r a l i n s t e a d of t h e first p e r s o n singular, o r in w h i c h t h e m i x t u r e of t h e t w o is m a d e c o n s p i c u o u s : Contra Apionem, I, 1-5, 8, 2 9 , 3 2 ~ 3 3 , 3 7 , 38, 54, 56, 5 8 - 6 2 , 6 9 - 7 4 , 9 2 - 9 3 , 105-106, 115-116, 127-128, 154-155, 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 , 174, 2 0 5 , 2 1 6 - 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 7 , 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 , 2 6 0 , 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 ; I I , 1-9, 18, 3 1 - 3 2 , 59ff., 7 9 , 8 1 , 102, 115, 120, 1 3 2 - 1 3 4 , 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 - 1 5 1 , 154, 1 5 6 - 1 5 7 , 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 , 2 2 6 , 2 3 3 234, 2 3 7 - 2 3 8 , 2 6 1 , 2 7 6 - 2 7 7 , 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 , 2 9 1 , 293, 296. I avoid mentioning here the p l e n t e o u s uses of t h e first p e r s o n p l u r a l a i m e d t o d e f e n d o r p r a i s e t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e (especially in I I , 145ff.). Op. cit., I, 4 - 5 , 8, 2 9 , 5 8 , 7 0 - 1 0 2 , 1 0 6 - 1 6 0 ; I I , 1. Op. cit., I, 1 6 1 - 2 1 8 ; I I , 1, 8 4 . 110

111

166

ARYEH KASHER

D . Citation or mention of accusations and their refutation T h e reference here is to the citation or mention of sources including comparative criticism, exposure of mutual or internal contradictions, and sober logical analysis. At this stage, we shall content ourselves with noting the significant fact that not all the accusations were quoted, and at times Josephus merely provided a superficial survey of their contents (cf. above). This is principally true of two writers, Apollonius M o l o n and Posidonius of Apamea. As stated, this is liable to arouse the suspicion that he was not familiar with their writings (as postu­ lated above with reference to Posidonius), or that he consciously avoided quoting their writings in full, so as not to have to cope with half-truths. His refraining from quoting Apollonius is given a plau­ sible "technical" explanation in II, 148, which explicitly states that Apollonius "has not grouped his accusations together" (i.e. in one treatise), "but scattered them here and there all over his work". It appears, then, that in addition to considerations of literary impor­ tance, he was also guided by considerations of simple "technical" convenience. This is interestingly reflected by the fact that most of his direct quotes were taken from writers such as Manetho and Apion, w h o wrote entire treatises devoted to anti-Semitic themes and pro­ vided a literary infrastructure for other writers. At the same time, he did not entirely skip over other sources, which he considered less important, such as Lysimachus, Chaeremon, Agatharchides of Cnidus and Mnaseas of Patara—although he did not give them the same attention as he did to Manetho and Apion.

E. Use of axiomatic statements requiring no evidence For this purpose, Josephus selected expressions such as "the facts are universally admitted", "notoriously", "the agreement of the wit­ nesses . . . affords strong confirmation of their veracity", "it is ob­ vious", "all agree", "it is reasonable", e t c . Through the use of these expressions, he apparendy sought to neutralize any possible opposition in advance, as it is much easier to convince one's listeners on the 112

113

114

115

1 . 2

Op. cit., I, 2 8 . Op. cit., I, 7 0 . Op. cit., I, 127. Cf. also op. cit., I, 1 4 3 , 160, 162, 174, 1 8 5 , 2 7 1 , 2 8 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 8 , 3 1 9 ; I I , 12, 156, 164, 1 6 8 , 182, 219ff, 289ff, 2 9 5 . 1 . 3

1 . 4

1 1 5

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

167

basis of universally accepted statements; moreover, tactically speaking, it is more efficient to bring one's audience to the desired destination if one starts from an agreed point.

F. Use of logical formulas Josephus sometimes avoided making conventional and exclusive use of direct logical formulas, preferring to use inverted logical formulas for the sake of emphasis. Thus: "My first thought is one of intense astonishment at the current opinion that, in the study of primeval history, the Greeks alone deserve serious attention", or: "In my view, the very reverse of this is the case, if, that is to say, we are not to take idle prejudices as our guide, but to extract the truth from the facts themselves". Compare the use of a direct logical formula having to do specifically with Greek historiographic writing and, by contrast, the use of an indirect logical formula with reference to the writing of the Eastern peoples. In most of these cases, he emphasizes the theme of wonder and astonishment, reason and unreason. This method entails a dual advantage, as it can stress both the positive and the negative aspects of any argument at the same time. If truth be told, each rhetorical question in Contra Apionem bears relevance to this paragraph. However, as special attention has been given to the method of rhetorical questions, I have referred to that method in only a very few cases. 116

117

118

G. Creating a structured, balanced model of comparison As stated above, at times Josephus chose to open an argument by citing agreed facts and generally accepted statements. I have shown that, in so doing, he sought to create the atmosphere that he desired. The same applies to the use of methodical tactics in the subsequent development of his ideas. In the matter at hand, it should be noticed that, by means of comparison or parallelization, he also sought to make the impression that he was adopting an objective and balanced approach in examining the subjects discussed by him, knowing that 116

Op. cit, I, 6. Op. cit., I, 7 - 8 . F o r m a n y m o r e e x a m p l e s see op. cit., I, 6, 15, 5 9 , 6 8 , 1 0 3 , 2 1 3 , 254ff., 293ff., 3 0 4 , 3 1 3 - 3 1 9 ; I I , 1 2 - 1 3 , 2 2 - 2 7 , 3 8 , 65ff., 7 4 , 8 2 , 8 5 , 98ffi, 109, 1 1 , 115ff., 1 2 5 , 142, 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 , 2 3 4 , 2 4 2 . 117

1 1 8

168

ARYEH KASHER

this would give him the image of an unbiased, thorough and reliable researcher. T h e following is a proposal of such a structured com­ parative model, having to do with the reliability of Eastern historiog­ raphy as against Greek historiography: Why was an authorized historical tradition preserved among Eastern peoples (and the Jews)? a. T h e existence of "very a n c i e n t traditions p r e s e r v e d in memory". b . Existence of g e o g r a p h i c a l conditions with n o e n v i r o n m e n t a l d a m a g e ("ravages of t h e a t m o s p h e r e " ) , w h i c h e n a b l e d stability. c. A w a r e n e s s of t h e n e e d for d o c u m e n t a t i o n a n d historical writing, so as " t o let n o n e of t h e events in their history b e forgotten". d. C a n o n i z a t i o n of history " t o h a v e [it] e n s h r i n e d " . 1 1 9

Why was an authorized historical tradition not preserved among the Greeks? a. L a c k of written history from a n c i e n t times n e i t h e r in temples n o r in public a r c h i v e s . b . Existence of g e o g r a p h i c environmental damage ("catastrophe") causing life to begin a n e w every so o f t e n . 120

122

121

e. D e p o s i t i o n of t h e historical writings in t h e h a n d s of t h e "greatest sages". f. D e v e l o p m e n t of writing (the alphabet) ab nihilo is evidence of t h e p r i m a c y of historical writing.

c. L a c k of awareness of historic writings, b e c a u s e they "obliterated t h e m e m o r y of t h e past". d. L a c k of awareness to keep history, since " m e n of e a c h e p o c h believed t h a t t h e world b e g a n with t h e m " . e. L a c k of awareness of public historical writing. f. Non-familiarity with t h e a l p h a b e t attests to t h e lack of a n c i e n t historical w r i t i n g . 123

124

At times, Josephus used the structured model of comparison for re­ liability checks on various sources which constituted targets for his polemic attacks. This is the case, for example, in the comparison of Manetho's version with that of Chaeremon concerning the leper libel. For the purpose of our discussion, we shall cite only a few differences:

1 , 9

120

121

122

123

124

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, I, I, I, I, I,

8. 11. 9. 10. 12. 10-11.

169

POLEMIC A N D APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

Manetho a. K i n g A m e n o p h i s ' desire to see the g o d s . b . Egypt's purification of lepers a n d t h e u n c l e a n — p r o p o s a l of Amenophis the seer. c. T h e n u m b e r of d e p o r t e e s : 80,000. d. T h e allies—the p e o p l e of Jerusalem. e. T h e m e e t i n g of t h e lepers a n d their allies in A u a r i s . f. Ramesses, son of A m e n o p h i s , fought with his father at a g e five a n d fled t o exile in Ethiopia. g. M o s e s ' Egyptian n a m e w a s Osarsiph. 125

Chaeremon a. T h e a p p e a r a n c e of Isis in a dream. b . T h e purification of E g y p t — Phritobautes' proposal. 1 2 6

127

128

129

131

133

c. T h e n u m b e r of d e p o r t e e s : 250,000. d. T h e allies—those left b y Amenophis. e. T h e m e e t i n g of t h e lepers a n d their allies in P e l u s i u m . f. R a m e s s e s w a s b o r n after his father's d e a t h a n d subsequently vanquished the J e w s . 130

132

134

1 3 5

136

137

g. M o s e s ' E g y p t i a n n a m e w a s Tisithen. 138

T h e purpose of preparing this model for close comparison was, as stated, to expose the unreliability of the hostile sources by presenting the contradictory facts o n which they are based (I, 293). Josephus outdid himself in making additional comparisons between the versions of Lysimachus (I, 304ff.) and Apion (II, 20ff.). According to Josephus, it seems that, besides the differences, additions and changes in the plot, the two created new and almost entirely independent sub-plots. Josephus considered this a valid reason to reject all of them.

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. See

cit., I, 2 3 2 , 2 5 4 , 2 9 4 . cit., I, 2 8 9 , 2 9 4 - 2 9 5 . cit., I, 2 8 9 . cit., I, 2 3 3 - 2 3 6 , 2 4 3 , 256fT. cit., I, 2 3 4 , 2 5 7 . cit., I, 2 9 0 , 2 9 5 . cit., I, 24Iff., 2 6 4 . cit., I, 2 9 7 - 3 0 2 . cit., I, 2 4 2 - 2 4 3 . cit., I, 2 9 7 . cit., I, 3 0 0 . cit., I, 2 4 5 - 2 4 7 . cit., I, 2 5 0 . cit., I, 2 9 0 . e.g., op. cit., I, 3 1 0 - 3 1 2 ; I I , 10ff., 1 5 - 1 7 , 2 0 - 2 8 .

139

170

ARYEH KASHER

H. Use of the model of legal debate Anyone perusing Contra Apionem will easily discover how, throughout the entire treatise, Josephus endeavored to give his readers the feeling that his body of arguments concerning the antiquity of the Jewish people and its religious, ethical and legal qualities withstands the test of truth as in a court of law. Indeed, it may be said that his seman­ tic concept of debate with the enemies of Israel was founded on terminology and technique borrowed from the world of the courts. This gave rise to the repeated use of terms and expressions such as "witness", "eyewitness", "testimony", "testimonial", "testify", "state­ ment", "evidence", " p r o o f , "judge", "defense", "to defend", "to justify", "prosecution", "to charge", "to condemn", "to accuse", "accu­ sation", "indictment", "tribunal", "punishment", "trust", "trustwor­ thy", "justice", "investigation of the truth on the basis of the facts". All of the quotes from the letters of Eastern writers—Manetho, Dius of Byblos, Menandros of Ephesus and Berossus —were viewed by him as "legal testimony". This also applied to quotations from the writings of authors and thinkers of Greek extraction, some of which were quoted and others summarized as proof of the antiquity of the Jews and the admiration felt by those writers for them. The reference here is to Pythagoras, Herodotus, Choerilus of Samos, Clearchus of Soli and Aristode, and Hecataeus of Abdera. Nor did Josephus hesitate to refer to the "testimony" of such Jew-haters as Agatharchides of Cnidus, nor to mention hostile writers by name, such as Hieronymus of Cardia. At times he contented himself with merely mentioning the names of writers, some of w h o m are even unknown to u s . By so doing, he apparently sought to demonstrate to his readers his sen­ sible and courageous approach, which does not ignore negative reality, but challenges it. For our purposes, it is naturally important to stress the fact that the refutation of the calumnious libels was implemented 140

141

142

143

144

1 4 0

O n this style see: D . M . H a y , " W h a t is P r o o f ? — R h e t o r i c a l Verification in P h i l o , J o s e p h u s a n d Q u i n t i l i a n " , in: Society of Biblical Literature, Seminar Papers, V o l . 2: Hellenistic Judaism Group, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a 1 9 7 9 , p p . 87ff.; K e e b l e (n. 4 above), p p . 33-35. Contra Apionem, I, 4, 6, 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 6 , 4 1 , 4 5 , 5 0 , 5 2 - 5 3 , 5 5 - 5 6 , 5 9 , 6 9 - 7 0 , 72, 74, 9 3 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 , 112, 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 , 129, 1 4 3 , 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 , 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 , 192, 2 0 0 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 7 , 2 5 4 , 2 6 7 , 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 , 2 9 3 ; I I , 1, 4 , 7, 2 7 , 3 3 , 4 2 , 5 3 , 5 6 , 6 1 - 6 2 , 6 5 , 6 9 7 1 , 7 3 - 7 4 , 7 8 - 7 9 , 132, 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 3 , 147, 1 5 1 , 155, 2 3 7 - 2 3 8 , 2 6 3 , 2 7 3 , 2 8 5 , 288-290. Op. cit., I, 7 5 - 1 0 3 , 1 1 3 - 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 - 1 5 2 , 1 5 6 - 1 5 8 . Op. cit., I, 1 6 2 - 1 6 5 , 1 6 8 - 2 1 4 . Op. cit., I, 2 1 6 - 2 1 8 . 141

142

143

144

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

in to or of

171

a manner analogous to the refutation of perjury in court, in order prove that they did not withstand the test of reason and the facts, to show that the evidence given by one writer contradicted that another. Generally speaking, those w h o spoke ill of the Jewish people were considered by Josephus as representing the prosecution, whereas he himself represented both defense and prosecution, as and w h e n re­ quired. Naturally, it is even more important to note that Josephus viewed his readers as sworn judges, similar to those w h o served in the public courts of the Greek democratic cities or in R o m e . T h e facts were presented to them in a thorough manner; the examina­ tion of the various testimony and arguments on the basis of the facts was conducted before them, the lies and plotting were exposed be­ fore their eyes and contrasted with the true facts—all in the hope and expectation that the readers-judges would judge well and rec­ ognize the truth. Obviously, however, this involved no small degree of persiflage to the readers, as the "truth" in this case is the very individual and subjective one propagated by Josephus himself. T h e metaphor of the courtroom experience was apparently intended to give Josephus' writing a dimension of dramatic tension related to the struggle between good and evil, justice and wickedness, truth and falsehood. Another advantage of this similarity, no less important to Josephus, was that it enabled him to show off his skill in rhetoric and impress his readers with the strength of his literary talent. There can be no doubt that this also affected the structure of the treatise, as noted above. Indeed, his speeches of defense in Book I and the first half of Book II (up to § 150) were phrased negatively, with a view to contradicting the libelous accusations of those w h o would attack the Jewish people, Moses the Legislator and his Torah. T h e last part of the treatise, on the other hand, is in the nature of posi­ tive defense, intended to expose and to laud the internal values of Judaism and the Jewish people, in order to increase their esteem in the eyes of his readers. 145

146

I believe it to be no error to state that Josephus' use of this writing technique, which presented a sort of courtroom debate, is worthy of more attention than can be given here.

1 4 5

See, e.g., op. cit, I, 2 9 3 - 3 0 4 , 3 1 2 - 3 2 0 ; I I , 2 - 7 , 9 7 - 1 0 2 , 1 0 9 - 1 1 1 , 1 1 5 - 1 2 4 , 137fr., 1 4 5 - 1 5 0 , 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 . Op. cit., II, 15 Iff. 146

172

ARYEH KASHER

I. Use of dialectic and dialectical syllogism Dialectic (8ia^eKTiicr|) is a term of philosophy, noted and defined by Plato through the inspiration of the philosophical terms of his master Socrates and the Sophists, to refer to the method of holding a dia­ logue or debate according to correct rules and for the purpose of exposing the truth. T h e reference here is first and foremost to the theory of debate, which was also adopted as a method of writing, and which aims to arrive at the truth by exposing contradictions, generally in the words—i.e. the arguments—of the opposing party in the debate (or dialogue). T h e disqualification of opinions is generally accomplished by contrasting them with other facts and truths consid­ ered more certain and reliable by the parties. At the same time, however, dialectic also represents a concept which views the devel­ opment of thought as a result of contrasts. Josephus appears to have used this technique, in both its meanings, many times. 147

148

As dialectic, by nature, focuses on justifications and arguments raised in discussion or debate with one other party o n l y , it should be viewed in Contra Apionem as a dialogue of intelligent persons, with Josephus as one party and his educated readers, collectively, as the o t h e r . In this, it should be distinguished from rhetoric addressed to the general public (see below). 149

150

J. Use of rhetoric and rhetorical questions Rhetoric is the technique or professional skill of the orator (x£%vr| prixopucri); or, the art of persuasion and convincing. A number of major writers and philosophers (such as Aristode, Cicero and Quintilian) are known to have devoted important treatises to rhetoric, which became part of the basic education of many Greco-Roman intellec­ tuals. Rhetoric developed greatly in R o m e as well, starting in the days of Cato and Cicero; as early as the second decade of the first 1 4 7

T h e v e r b 8iaAiY0|i<xi m e a n s " t o h o l d c o n v e r s e w i t h " ; cf. t h e u s e b y J o s e p h u s in op. ext., I, 5 8 . A s t h e r e is n o u s e h e r e r e f e r r i n g t o all t h e e x a m p l e s , I shall d o so in m y f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y . A t this stage I shall w r i t e d o w n o n l y t h e m o s t conspicu­ o u s cases, s u c h a s : op. cit., I, 19, 2 3 , 3 8 , 5 9 , 6 8 , 2 1 2 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 6 , 2 3 0 , 2 5 2 - 2 8 7 , 2 9 3 3 0 4 , 3 1 2 - 3 2 0 ; I I , 1-8, 12ff., 3 3 - 3 4 , 4 1 - 4 2 , 4 9 , 5 6 , 6 5 - 7 1 , 7 3 , 7 9 , 8 1 - 8 2 , 8 5 , 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 7 , 1 0 9 - 1 1 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 2 2 - 1 2 4 , 126, 1 3 5 - 1 4 4 , 1 4 8 - 1 5 0 , 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 5 , 2 3 9 , 242-260, 262-270, 273-275, 278. P e r l m a n (n. 12 a b o v e ) , p . 10. Gf. p a r a g r a p h 4 a b o v e ( p p . 1 5 9 - 1 6 1 ) . 1 4 8

1 4 9

1 5 0

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

173

century BCE, one of the earliest practical guides to R o m a n rhetoric, titled Rhetorica ad Herennium, appeared in that city. In my opinion, as rhetoric was a normative part of the Greco-Roman education at that time, it may be safely assumed that Josephus was familiar with that treatise, and perhaps with others like it. In this connection, we should also remember the fact that the rhetorician Quintilian, a contemporary of Josephus, was appointed by his patron, Emperor Vespasian, as an official (paid) lecturer in rhetoric at the imperial court, and was later hired by Domitian as the personal tutor of two members of his family. T h e fact that he was extremely influential in his day and taught many successful disciples (including Pliny the Younger), and even used rhetoric to further his success as a renowned and wealthy attorney, reinforces the assumption that Josephus knew of him and was well aware of the secrets of his art. In my opinion, there are reasonable grounds to assume that Josephus, too, was swept up in the vogue of rhetoric inspired by Quintilian and perhaps also by others of that era (such as D i o Chrysostom)—the difference being that Josephus sought to use rhetoric as an invincible rebuttal of the enemies of Israel, w h o seem even to have attracted Quintilian to their ranks. As rhetoric was never addressed to individuals, but only to the general public, such as that attending public assemblies and trials, the rhetoricians had to develop impressive skills of convincing and persuasion. T h e use of rhetorical questions filled this need with a great degree of success. T h e advantage of such questions, inter alia, lay in the fact that they could serve as an efficient' tool for logical justification or syllogism, effective against educated intellectuals, on one hand, and, on the other, as an intoxicating drug for the masses. The latter tended to be more impressed by aspects of form, such as style, clarity of speech, decisiveness and forcefulness, etc. T h e very fact that these questions could be considered as a substitute for ques­ tions posed to witnesses in the courtroom was a great advantage in itself, especially as they constituted an effective and important tool for verbal debate leading to victory in court. It is a well-known fact that nearly every rhetorical question has 151

152

151

D . L. C l a r k , Rhetoric at Rome. A Historical Survey, L o n d o n 1 9 5 3 ; idem, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, N e w Y o r k 1957; G . K e n n e d y , The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, P r i n c e t o n 1972. See M . S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, J e r u s a l e m 1974, I, pp. 512-514. 1 5 2

174

ARYEH KASHER

two sides. O n one hand, it may be considered as a leading question, intended to elicit a reply desired by the asker; on the other, it can also be a question which requires no answer at all, but is asked merely to impress the reader or listener. This sort of literary tactics was commonly used in Hellenistic and R o m a n literature, and may even be found in numerous works by Hellenistic Jewish writers. Philo of Alexandria, for example, tended to use it regularly in his historical treatises. It seems reasonable to me that Josephus was influenced by Philo in this direction as well, and not only in value-oriented considerations having to do with the praise of Judaism, its beliefs and laws. N o less reasonable, in my opinion, is the possibility that Josephus gave rhetoric first preference in Contra Apionem, in view of the significant fact that Apion himself was a renowned rhetorician; in other words, Josephus planned to "fight fire with fire"—that is, with the flame of his own rhetoric. While there are some who be­ lieve that it was precisely Dionysus of Halicarnassus who was most influential on Josephus' rhetorical writing, I prefer to believe that his inspiration in this matter had more than one source. As stated, rhetorical questions were deemed to be an effective polemic weapon in the Greco-Roman world, and were especially c o m m o n in public speeches and legal debates. Contra Apionem includes a total of 90 (!) such questions, 40 in Book I and 50 in Book II. Such a large number in such a short treatise obviously indicates that Josephus considered the technique to be an especially effective means of persuasion. H e first made use of it in his rewriting of the speeches 153

154

155

1 5 3

S e e , e.g., In Flaccum, 5 1 , 5 4 ; Legatio ad Gaium, 5 6 , 6 8 - 6 9 , 86ff., lOlff., 119, 141ff., 182, 2 0 8 , 2 4 2 , 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 5 , 2 9 8 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 7 - 3 4 8 , 3 7 0 371. A p i o n w a s r e n o w n e d for his r h e t o r i c a l skill a n d for his k n o w l e d g e of G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e . H e w a s a n e x p e r t o n H o m e r ' s writings, a n d e v e n t u a l l y e v e n h e a d e d t h e H o m e r i c school in A l e x a n d r i a , as a disciple of D i d y m u s a n d t h e successor of T h e o n s o n of A r t e m i d o r u s . I n t h e d a y s of t h e R o m a n E m p e r o r s T i b e r i u s a n d C l a u d i u s , h e visited R o m e a n d l e c t u r e d t h e r e ( S u d a , s.v. 'ATUCOV); u n d e r C a l i g u l a , h e e v e n w e n t o n lecture t o u r s t h r o u g h o u t G r e e c e as a s p e a k e r a n d c o m m e n t a t o r of H o m e r ' s poetry, a n d b e c a m e q u i t e f a m o u s as a result (Seneca, Epistulae Morales, L X X X V I I I , 40). S o m e of t h e e d u c a t e d p e r s o n s of his t i m e t h o u g h t of h i m as a c h a r l a t a n , a gossip a n d a n u t t e r l y a r r o g a n t p e r s o n . A m o n g t h e s e w a s Pliny t h e E l d e r (Naturalis Historia, praef. 25), w h o s t a t e d t h a t A p i o n w a s a v a i n b r a g g a r t , w h o b o a s t e d t h a t a n y o n e m e n t i o n e d in his w r i t i n g s w o u l d b e r e m e m b e r e d forever; h e called h i m " t h e d r u m of his o w n g l o r y " (famae propriae tympanum), a n d s t a t e d t h a t t h e E m p e r o r T i b e r i u s h a d ridiculed h i m w i t h t h e a p p e l l a t i o n cymbalum mundi, w i t h reference t o his consist e n d y high-flown m a n n e r of s p e e c h . H i s diligent e n d e a v o r s to w i n t h e a d u l a t i o n of t h e m a s s e s w o n h i m t h e n i c k n a m e " t o i l " , " d i s t r e s s " a n d " h a r d s h i p " (MoxBoc;). See D . J . L a d o u c e u r , " T h e L a n g u a g e of J o s e p h u s " , Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, 14 (1983), p p . 1 8 - 3 8 . 1 5 4

1 5 5

175

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING 156

attributed to various personages in his book Bellum Judaicum. In my opinion, he tended to use the technique in order to obtain the fol­ lowing advantages: 157

1. Preventing readers from actively arguing with the written text. 2. The ability to use an arrogant, mocking and ironic tone in order to neutralize readers' potential objections and to inspire credibil­ ity, as a result (inter alia) of the obvious self-confidence of the asker (i.e. Josephus). 3. The ability to arouse curiosity and interest by exposing unreason in other ways of thinking, and especially the possibility of casting doubt on erroneous (or undesirable) information which readers have adopted or are liable to have a d o p t e d . 4. The ability to pose a long series of closely spaced rhetorical ques­ tions in order to achieve a cumulative effect (this writing technique will be discussed in greater detail below), intended to undermine any resistance on the part of the readers. 5. The ability to use vexatious, ironic rhetorical questions in order to create a model of comparison and thereby to emphasize desired contrasts and gaps. 6. The ability to prove, by means of pseudo-rhetorical questions, that one's rival does not know how to make inquiries or examine facts in order to expose the truth, and subsequendy to turn those pseudorhetorical questions into a two-edged sword of crass accusations against that rival. 158

159

160

161

162

1 5 6

T h u s , for e x a m p l e , h e p u t in his o w n m o u t h n o less t h a n 30 r h e t o r i c a l q u e s ­ tions in t h e s p e e c h w h i c h h e h a d d e l i v e r e d before t h e J e r u s a l e m walls; see Bellum Judaicum, V , 3 6 2 - 4 2 0 . H e p u t en masse also q u e s t i o n s of t h a t k i n d in t h e s p e e c h e s given b y T i t u s ; see, e.g., Bellum Judaicum, V , 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 (3 Q u e s t i o n s ) ; op. cit., 1 2 4 - 1 2 6 (5 questions); op. cit., 3 2 9 - 3 3 1 (7 questions); op. cit., 3 4 8 - 3 4 9 (5 questions). T h e s a m e is to b e said of t h e well k n o w n s p e e c h d e l i v e r e d b y E l e a z a r son of Y a i r o n t h e cliff of M a s a d a ; see V I I , 3 4 9 - 3 8 8 (13 questions). See, e.g., I, 6 8 ; I I , 2 8 , 5 9 , 6 5 - 6 6 , 9 9 , 126, 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 , 2 3 2 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 3 294. See, e.g., I, 2 5 4 - 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ; I I , 6 5 - 6 6 , 100, 115, 142, 2 3 9 , 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 , 2 7 3 - 2 7 4 , 279. Since m o s t of t h e q u e s t i o n s w e r e a i m e d a t t h a t t a r g e t , I shall c o n t e n t myself w i t h m e n t i o n i n g o n l y a few p r o m i n e n t cases, s u c h as I, 2 5 4 - 2 5 9 , 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 , 3 2 0 ; I I , 2 5 , 6 5 - 6 6 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 109, 120, 2 6 3 , 2 6 7 . See, e.g., I, 5 6 (1 triple question); 2 5 4 - 2 5 9 (12 questions); 3 1 3 - 3 2 0 (7 q u e s ­ tions); II, 6 5 - 6 8 (7 questions); 9 9 - 1 0 1 (6 questions); 2 7 3 (3 questions) 2 9 3 - 2 9 4 (4 questions). F o r e x a m p l e I, 6 9 , 2 5 4 - 2 5 9 ; I I , 3 9 - 4 0 . See, e.g., I, 2 5 4 - 2 5 9 . T h i s is m o s t c o n s p i c u o u s in r e g a r d t o t h e e v i d e n c e r e ­ lated to L y s i m a c h u s ; see I, 3 1 3 - 3 1 7 ; I I , 8 2 . 1 5 7

1 5 8

1 5 9

1 6 0

161

1 6 2

176

ARYEH KASHER

T o summarize this subject, let us recall Feldman's evaluation of Josephus as an expert rhetorician, one of whose most frequently employed techniques was the transformation of encomium into con­ demnation (\|/6yos) and vice versa. In this way, he was able to re­ move the sting from any defamation or accusation against the Jews and transform it into praises. O n e of the most prominent examples of this is the charge of misanthropy leveled against the Jews, to which J o s e p h u s r e s p o n d e d by proving that aloofness from foreigners was also typical of the Spartans and the Athenians, and that there­ fore the Jews should be praised for this character trait, rather than condemned. 163

K. Use of the ranking system In my opinion, Josephus used this method to exert a cumulative effect (which will be discussed separately below) on his readers and to cre­ ate a continuity intended to lead them to some desired zenith or objective. T h e method is constructed as a rhetorical stunt: a sort of syllogism built on a continuous series of hypotheses piled one upon the other, in order to create a final and supposedly unimpeachable conclusion. As an example, let us cite the following: ". . . the origi­ nal neglect of the Greeks to keep official records of current events. This neglect was not confined to the lesser Greek states. Even among the Athenians . . . O f the Arcadians and their vaunted antiquity it is unnecessary to speak, since even at a still later date, they had hardly learnt the alphabet"; "Greeks, as is well known, are not the only people with w h o m our laws come into conflict; those principally so affected are Egyptians and many others". 164

165

166

With reference to the accusations against the Jews, Josephus used the ranking system in an even more fascinating way, as may be seen from the following series of quotations: ". . . the omission of some historians to mention our nation was due, not to ignorance, but to envy or some other disingenuous reason"; "Yet, whereas Hecataeus devoted a whole book to us, Hieronymus . . . has nowhere mentioned us in his history. So widely different were the views of these two 167

1 6 3

164

165

166

167

F e l d m a n (n. 4 a b o v e ) , p . 148. Op. cit., 142ff. Op. cit., I, 2 0 - 2 2 . Op. cit., I I , 9 9 . Op. cit., I, 2 1 3 .

177

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

men. O n e thought us deserving of serious notice; the eyes of the other, through an ill-natured disposition, were totally blind to the truth"; "Some of them carried their folly and narrow-mindedness so far that they did not hesitate to contradict their ancient chronicles, nay, in the blindness of their passion, they failed to perceive that in what they wrote they actually contradicted themselves". T h e de­ nial of their own sources appears here as a prime example of the use of the ranking method to expose the folly and blind hatred of the libelers. T w o additional examples are as follows: "I think I have already given not merely sufficient, but even superabundant, proof. . ."; "A tale of this kind is not merely packed with' all the horrors of a tragedy; it is also replete with the cruelty of impudence". In his contradiction of Manetho, Josephus also used the ranking method to create a dramatic feeling which emphasizes the absurd in Manetho's statements. For example: "Notwithstanding the warning he had received and his dread of the future, the king even then did not expel from the country the cripples, of whose presence he had already been told to purge Egypt, but instead gave them at their request a city". Another, no less interesting, example is: "Here again the author [Manetho] is unconscious of the improbability of his fictitious tale. However indignant the lepers and their horde may formerly have been with the king and the others who had, under the seer's directions, so ill-treated them, yet surely on emerging from the stone-quarries and being presented by him with a city and land, their feelings towards him would have been mollified. Even supposing their hatred of him still persisted, they would have conspired against him alone, and not have declared war on the whole nation . . . Granted that they decided on war with the Egyptian [people], they would never have decided to make war on their gods, nor would they have framed laws directly opposed to the national code under which they had been brought u p " . Josephus at times used the ranking system for a priori ironic state­ ments, such as: "But let us consider the most ludicrous item in the whole story" —which were obviously intended to keep his readers 168

169

170

171

172

173

174

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, 2 1 4 . I, 2 2 6 . I I , 8. II, 97. I, 2 6 0 . Italics i n s e r t e d b y t h e a u t h o r for e m p h a s i s . I, 2 6 7 - 2 6 9 ; cf. also I, 2 7 0 . I, 2 6 0 .

178

ARYEH KASHER

from evincing any possible sympathy for the attacked writer—or: "At the outset, the very hypothesis of this fictitious story is ridiculous"; "Here again the author [Manetho] is unconscious of the improba­ bility of his fictitious tale". At times Josephus attempted to contradict the enemies of Israel by citing ranked logical hypotheses. Obvious examples of this pattern include: "However indignant the lepers and their horde may formerly have been . . . yet surely on emerging from the stone-quarries . . . their feelings towards him would have been modified. Even supposing their hatred of him still persisted, they would have conspired against him alone, and not have declared war on the whole nation . . . Granted that they decided on war with the Egyptians, they would never have decided to make war on their gods, nor would they have framed laws directly opposed to the national code under which they had been brought u p " ; "the gem of his narrative"; "But—most as­ tounding fact of a l l . . . However, it would, I think, be foolish to spend more time in refuting . . ."; "I will next introduce Lysimachus . . . [who] surpasses both [of the previous authors] in the incredibility of his fictions . . .". 175

176

177

178

179

180

Following is an example of the use of the ranking method with respect to the factor of time: "our forefathers . . . assigned [the keep­ ing of the records] to their chief priests and prophets" (past); "down to our own times these records have been" (present) "and if I may ven­ ture to say so, will continue to be preserved with scrupulous accuracy" (future). Similarly, he noted: ". . . the city of R o m e , which had long before their time attained such power and been so successful in war, is mentioned neither by Herodotus nor by Thucydides . . . it was only at quite a late date that a knowledge of the Romans with diffi­ culty penetrated to the Greeks"; "On the Gauls and the Iberians such was the ignorance of persons reputed to be the most exact of histo­ rians"; "Surely, then, it should no longer excite surprise that our nation . . . likewise remained largely unknown and offered no occasion to historians to mention it". With regard to Apion, Josephus noted 181

182

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,

254. 267. 267-269. 298. 302-303. 3 0 4 ; cf. I, 3 1 2 . 29. 66-68.

179

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

that "For I observe, on the other hand, that people in general also have a habit of being intensely delighted when one w h o has been the first to malign another has his own vices brought home to h i m " . The time factor in Josephus' ranking method is also reflected in his statements on the order in which he writes things. Thus, on several occasions, he said: "My first t h o u g h t . . . " or something similar, indi­ cating that he intended to add other matters at a later stage; "I propose, in the first place, to reply b r i e f l y . . . I shall then proceed to cite testimonies . . . and finally to show . . ."; "Before proceeding to show the manifest absurdity . . . I will make one preliminary obser­ vation, which bears on the replies to be made later on . . ."; "It remains for me to say a word to Manetho . . ."; "The next witness I shall cross-examine [after Manetho] is Chaeremon"; "On this I will first remark. . . Next [I will ask] . . ."; "In the argument to which I now p r o c e e d . . ."; "Resuming, then, after this slight di­ gression, I would begin with . . ,". In this way, he sought to raise expectations a m o n g his readers, and certainly to tempt them to continue reading, with a view to persuading them of the lightness of his opinions. 183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

One of the most illustrative examples of the use of the ranking method concerns the admirers of Jews at the beginning of the Hel­ lenistic Era: "Not only did the Greeks [i.e. pro-Jewish Greek writers] know the Jews, but they admired any of their number w h o m they happened to meet"; "This statement applies not only to the lowest class of Greeks, but to those with the highest reputation for wis­ dom . . . Clearchus, a disciple of Aristode, and in the very first rank of peripatetic philosophers, relates . . . [and] puts the words into the mouth of Aristotle h i m s e l f ' . W e shall close with an additional example on the same subject: "This allusion of Aristotle to us is men­ tioned parenthetically by Clearchus . . . O f a different nature is the evidence of Hecataeus of Abdera . . . H e makes no mere passing 192

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I I , 5. I, 6, 7 3 , 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 , 128, 2 1 9 . I, 5 8 - 5 9 . I, 2 5 2 . I, 2 7 9 . I, 2 8 8 . II, 8 1 - 8 2 . I I , 125. II, 151. I, 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 .

180

ARYEH KASHER 193

allusion to us, but wrote a book entirely about the J e w s " . In describing the admiration of Ptolemy II Philadelphus for the Jews, he emphasized the ranking motif in expressions such as: ". . . not only surrendered all prisoners of our race within his realm, but was liberal in his presents of money. T h e highest compliment, however, which he paid us lay in his keen desire to know our laws . . ,". T h e ranking method is especially prominent in the praise and defense of Moses and his l a w s . As this is an especially extensive section of the treatise, we shall content ourselves here with only a few examples: "All schemes of education and moral training fall into two categories: instruction is imparted in the one case by precept, in the other by practical exercising of the character"; "The consider­ ation given by our legislator to the equitable treatment of aliens also merits attention. It will be seen that he [Moses] took the best pos­ sible measures at once to secure our own customs from corruption, and to throw them open ungrudgingly to any who elect to share them . . . holding that it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but agreement in the principles of conduct"; "[Our legislator demanded that] we must furnish fire, water, food to all w h o ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies. H e does not allow us to burn up their country or to cut down their fruit trees, and forbids even the spoiling of fallen combatants; he has taken measures to prevent outrage to prisoners of war, especially w o m e n . . . he does not overlook even the brute beasts . . . we are forbidden to kill. . . [he] bade us even in an enemy's country to spare and not to kill the beasts employed in labour. Thus, in every particular, he had an eye to mercy"; "The penalty for most offences against the Law is death: for adultery, for violating an unmarried woman, for outrage upon a male, for consent of one so tempted to such abuse. The Law is no less inexorable for slaves. Even fraud in such matters as weights or measures, or injustice and deceit in trade, or purloining another man's property, or laying hands on what one did not deposit. . ."; "[we 194

195

196

197

198

199

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op.

cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit., cit.,

I, II, II, II, II, II, II,

183. 4 5 ; cf. I I , 4 6 - 4 8 . 157-296. 171. 209-210. 211-214. 215-216.

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

181

face] death on behalf of our laws with a courage which no other nation can equal. For even those practices of ours which seem the easiest others find difficult to tolerate: I mean personal service, simple diet, discipline which leaves no room for freak or individual caprice in matters of meat or drink, or in the sexual relations, or in extra­ vagance, or again the abstention from work at rigidly fixed periods". 200

L. Ways of citation In general, Josephus endeavored to use this method when he felt that the quoted party was a writer well-known to his audience of readers. Thus, for example, concerning Manetho, he noted: "I will begin with the Egyptian documents. I cannot quote from the origi­ nals; but in Manetho we have one w h o was both a native of Egypt and also proficient in Greek l e a r n i n g . . . I will quote his own words, just as if I had produced the man himself in the witness b o x " . Similar statements are made with reference to Dius of Tyre, Berossus, Pythagoras, Herodotus, Choerilus of Samos, Clearchus of Soli and Aristotle, Hecataeus of Abdera, and the like. Citations are made in order to attain two main objectives: (a) direct support of the thesis which he was attempting to present; (b) expo­ sure of the absurd and deliberate lie in order to mock it and to emphasize its cracks and contradictions. Aside from those two goals, I have already shown how Josephus sometimes uses citation in order to impress his readers and boast of his education and broad hori­ zons, and in order to conceal the paucity of his knowledge. In this way, he also seems to have sought to create an affinity with his read­ ers and to increase the credibility of the messages which he wished to convey to them. At times, he interspersed the citations with linking or explanatory comments of his own. A typical example of this is his explanation for the epithets used by Manetho to allude to the forefathers of the Jews: "Hycsos", "shepherds" and "captives". T o this explanation, he adds a personal remark of his own: "However, I propose to investigate 201

202

203

204

200

201

202

2 0 3

2 0 4

Op. Op. Op. Cf. Cf.

cit., I I , 2 3 4 ; a n d cit., I, 7 3 - 7 4 . cit., I, 112, 129, Kleine Pauly, V, Contra Apionem, I,

there are m a n y more examples. 162, 168, 172, 176, 1 8 3 . pp. 441-442. 8 3 , 9 1 - 9 2 , 106, 112, 127, 154, 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 .

182

ARYEH KASHER

205

these matters more fully elsewhere". T h e comment was meant to give his readers the impression that they could look forward to more clever explanations. It certainly created an artificial pause intended to arouse curiosity and expectations of the fulfillment of his promise through continued reading. Typically, he concludes Book I by not­ ing: "This book, however, having already run to a suitable length, I propose at this point to begin a second, in which I shall endeavour to supply the remaining portion of my subject". In the same way, he inserts a similar remark at the beginning of Book I: "I shall now proceed to refute the rest of the authors who have attacked us". At times, these interjected remarks are in the nature of an evaluation of the importance of the quoted passages. For example: "On these matters the Chaldaean account must surely be accepted. Moreover, statements in accordance with those of Berossus are found in the Phoenician archives, which relate how the king of Babylon subdued Syria and the whole of Phoenicia". In these interspersed remarks, Josephus sometimes raised rather obvious logical propositions. For example: "We have therefore Manetho's authority for saying both that our race was not of Egyptian origin, and that there was no mixture of the races. For, presumably, many of the lepers and other sick folk died during that long period of hardship in the quarries, many more in the subsequent battles, and most of all in the final engagement and the rout". Another example: "Such is Chaeremon's account. From these statements the mendacity of both writers is, I think, self-evident. Had they any foun­ dation in fact, such wide discrepancy would be impossible. But con­ sistency with others is not the concern of authors of fiction; they invent according to their fancy". In certain cases, these interjected remarks served Josephus as ex­ positions for various subjects. O n numerous occasions, he inserted remarks of his own into, before, or after the quotations, not only in order to explain them, but to give his writing an added, impressive 206

207

208

209

210

211

205

Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op. The Apionem. 2 0 6

207

2 0 8

2 0 9

210

2 1 1

cit., I, 9 1 . cit., I, 3 2 0 . cit., I I , 1. cit., I, 1 4 3 . cit., I, 2 7 8 . cit., I, 2 9 3 . m a n y cases will b e discussed in m y f o r t h c o m i n g c o m m e n t a r y to Contra

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

183

212

air of drama. In Book II, he often recounted the content of evi­ dence, along with explanations and commentaries of his own, in­ stead of quoting directly and fully; in this matter, the difference between Book I and Book II is prominent. W e have already seen that this primarily applies when speaking of authors such as Apollonius Molon, Posidonius of Apamea, and Apion. This can be prima facie explained (at least partially) as a change in stylistic editing resulting from a time interval which elapsed between the writing of the two parts of the treatise, as alluded to by the concluding passage of Book I. However, it seems more likely that Josephus intentionally avoided direct quotation, whether because some of the sources were not avail­ able to him (such as those of Posidonius of Apamea and Apollonius Molon), or because he feared the negative influence of Apion's exact words and their venomous content of half-truths phrased by a skilled linguist and renowned rhetorician.

M. Accuracy of chronological detail By contrast to the mythographic style of writing, Josephus sought to highlight the historiographic nature of his own work, which is distin­ guished by great chronological accuracy and a plethora of details and data. By so doing, he desired to emphasize his credibility and thoroughness as a historian aiming at the absolute truth and there­ fore completely trustworthy. O n e of his characteristic means of do­ ing so is the mention, citation and detailed calculation of dates in terms of Olympiads, years, months and days. This is done with ref­ erence to events, personages and writers, whether his attitude to the latter is negative or positive. H e also sought to demonstrate his­ torical accuracy through an orderly, albeit incomplete, chronological survey of the Hellenistic kings and the R o m a n rulers: Alexander of Macedonia, Seleucus I and the Diadochs, Ptolemy I son of Lagos, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Ptolemy III Euergetes I, Ptolemy V I Philometor and his wife Cleopatra II, Ptolemy VIII Physcon Euer­ getes II, Cleopatra VII, Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, Octavian or 213

2 . 2

F o r e x a m p l e : I, 9 3 , 106, 116, 1 2 8 , 134, 142ff., 154, 161ff., 168; a n d t h e r e a r e m a n y m o r e cases. S e e , e.g., Contra Apionem, I, 6 9 - 7 4 , 8 3 , 9 1 - 9 3 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 5 , 112, 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 - 1 3 4 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 5 , 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 , 159ff, 1 6 2 - 1 6 8 , 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 1 7 4 - 1 7 6 , 1 8 2 - 1 8 6 , 190, 1 9 2 - 1 9 6 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 5 - 2 0 8 , 2 1 2 , 2 2 3 - 2 3 2 , 2 3 7 , 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 , 2 8 8 , 2 9 3 , 3 0 4 , 312ff.; I I , 8, 12ff., 2 0 , 22ff, 33ff, 65ff, 79ff., 89ff, 97ff., 115ff, 121ff, a n d m o r e . 2 . 3

184

ARYEH KASHER 214

Augustus. Along with these illustrious names, he mentioned the names of various philosophers or politicians and accurately corre­ lated their dates with those of the various rulers. For example: Demetrius of Phalerum, Andreas and Aristeas, who were active in the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus; Onias and Dositheus, the famous Jewish military commanders who were active during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra II, as well as that of Ptolemy VIII Physcon; the same applies to other personages. 215

216

N . Use of the cumulative effect In the course of our study of the various writing techniques, we have already mentioned, on several occasions, the use of the cumulative effect in the persuasion of readers. I do not intend to repeat myself here, but, rather, to examine the method by means of several ex­ amples in which Josephus crammed a great deal of information, or mentioned a great many famous names, in a single pertinent con­ text. O n reading such passages, one can get the impression that he sought to impress his readers with the breadth of his education, and naturally thereby to reinforce their feeling that he was right in his arguments. In other words, the profusion of names and information is intended to sweep readers into a feeling of being convinced. T h e cumulative effect is quite pronounced in the review of favors granted by various rulers to the Jews. Josephus first mentioned Alexander, continued with Ptolemy I and the rest of the Ptolemies, and concluded with Julius Caesar. H e later also mentioned Seleucus I, then Alexander again and Ptolemy I again. H e then continued to a review of the kindnesses shown by the kings of Egypt in chrono­ logical order as follows: Ptolemy II Philadelphus; Ptolemy III Euergetes I; after skipping over Ptolemy IV Philopator and Ptolemy V Epiphanes (apparently for understandable reasons of inconvenience as a result of their hostile policy towards Jews), he resumed with Ptolemy V I Philometor and Q u e e n Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII 217

218

2 1 4

Op. cit., I I , 3 5 , 3 9 , 4 2 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 8 - 4 9 , 5 Iff., 5 8 , 6 0 - 6 1 . Op. cit., I I , 4 6 - 4 7 Op. cit., I I , 49ff. Op. cit., I, 3 9 , 8 0 - 8 1 , 8 4 , 9 4 - 9 7 , 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 , 108, 117, 1 2 1 - 1 2 6 , 132, 136, 1 4 6 150, 154, 1 5 6 - 1 5 9 , 172, 1 8 3 - 1 8 5 , 2 3 0 - 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 7 , 2 6 6 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 5 ; II, 1 6 - 1 9 , 2 1 , 2 3 - 2 5 , 134. Op. cit., I I , 3 7 , 6 2 , 6 4 . 215

2 1 6

2 . 7

2 . 8

POLEMIC AND APOLOGETIC METHODS OF WRITING

185

Physcon Euergetes II. In the case of Cleopatra VII, he did not skip her, despite her hostility toward the Jews, but took the trouble to berate her for her negative attitude; by contrast, he stressed the positive attitude of Julius Caesar, Augustus, the R o m a n Senate and the Em­ perors of R o m e in general. H e concluded with the definitive state­ ment that "Apion ought to have . . . examined . . . the testimonials given [to the Jews] under Alexander and under all the Ptolemies, with those emanating from the Senate and the most distinguished Roman emperors". 219

0 . Method of summary By means of this technique, Josephus sought to achieve several im­ portant objectives: 1. T o focus the information on one of the writers, in order to en­ able readers to concentrate more easily on the matter which in­ terests t h e m . 2. T o propose a preliminary summary enabling the exposition on a certain subject or a direct quote which will be discussed further in the work. Example: after summarizing Berossus' account of ancient history from N o a h to Nabopalassar, he wrote: " { T h e n again, [a passage] a little lower down in Berossus is cited in his history of antiquity}. But I will quote Berossus's own words, which are as follows . . ." H e then proceeded to quote them at length, followed by another summary. 3. T o offer interim summaries linking related passages in the treatise and enabling a cumulative effect capable of stressing and empha­ sizing certain aspects. 220

221

222

Concluding words This article dwells on the apologetic and the polemic instruments employed by Josephus in order to ward off the attacks on Jews and

2 1 9

Op. cit., I I , 3 9 , 4 2 - 6 2 . S e e , e.g., V I, 7 3 , 9 3 , 112, 116, 128ff., 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 , 155ff., 162ff., 167, 168ff., 172fF., 176ff., 184ff., 213ff., 227ff., a n d t h e r e a r e m a n y m o r e e x a m p l e s . Op. cit., I, 1 3 4 - 1 4 3 , cf. also I, 6 9 - 7 2 , 106ff.; I I , 1-8, 2 0 , 2 8 - 3 2 . S e e , e.g., op. cit., I, 1 3 - 1 8 , 8 3 , 9 1 - 9 3 , 1 0 3 - 1 0 5 , 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 , 2 1 6 - 2 2 2 ; I I , 15ff. 2 2 0

221

2 2 2

186

ARYEH KASHER

Judaism which were so often circulated in Greco-Roman circles. I have intended to offer a systematical analysis of his argumentations and literary techniques while writing Contra Apionem. His refutation of Manetho's crass and venemous accusations, which provided the liter­ ary foundation for most of the vitriolic and vituperative anti-Jewish writings in generations to follow, can serve as a good and illustrative example. I hope that my article will encourage interest in Josephus' writings in general and in Contra Apionem in particular.

T H E CONTRA APIONEM I N S O C I A L A N D L I T E R A R Y CONTEXT: AN INVITATION T O JUDEAN PHILOSOPHY STEVE M A S O N

York University

Was Judaism of the G r e c o - R o m a n period a missionary religion? Through more than a century scholars occasionally debated the issue, but the dominant view was that Judaism encouraged proselytism (e.g., Schiirer 1986: III. 1, 150-76; Bamberger 1939; Braude 1940; Georgi 1964; Leon 1960: 2 5 0 - 5 6 ; Simon 1964). Evidence was adduced from Greek and Latin authors w h o reflected upon Jewish proselytizing, from Jewish literature that seemed to welcome converts, from the expulsions of Jews from R o m e on charges of proselytism, and from early Christian texts. In recent years, however, the question has been reopened with vigor. In this recent flurry of activity, the decidedly stronger current holds that Judaism was not a missionary religion (McKnight 1991; Will and Orrieux 1992; Cohen 1991, 1992; Good­ man 1992, 1994; Kraabel 1994). O n this view, texts that extolled the virtues of Judaism were read almost exclusively by Jews. And in any case, the Jewish literature does not advocate proselytism, even if it welcomes the occasional self-motivated convert. In holding to the view that ancient Judaism was a missionary religion, Louis Feldman (1993) has become something of a lone voice. Cohen, himself a re­ cent proselyte to the non-missionary hypothesis, sees a "new consen­ sus" in the making (1991: 166; but cf. 1987: 4 9 - 5 8 ) . Although these debates have been helpful in some ways, I see litde point in asking whether Judaism was a missionary religion. All of the key terms are problematic: Judaism (which kind? represented by whom?), missionary (does mission require a central body or char­ ter?), and religion (how was ancient religion distinct from ethnic culture? from philosophy?). Further, we cannot penetrate through the surviving texts to uncover such psychological motives as missionary zeal. W e shall only progress, therefore, if we narrow the question to particular places, times, documents, and individuals. In such local conditions, did gentiles embrace Judean culture in any significant numbers and, if they did, how is that process best explained?

188

STEVE MASON

Accordingly, this essay deals with one author, one text, one place, and one time: Josephus's Contra Apionem, written for gentiles in R o m e at the end of the first century. This document, I shall argue, is best understood as an invitation to already interested gentile readers to embrace Judean philosophy. O f course, the text does not plainly say this, so anyone w h o insists that texts tell us everything we should like to know about them will not find the argument convincing. But the author and first readers shared extratextual resources that were criti­ cal to their communication. In an effort to recover those resources, the best that we can do is to sketch out what is known of Josephus's broad social context in post-war R o m e , and of the literary context provided for the Contra Apionem by Josephus's earlier works. Taking into account both the context and content of the Contra Apionem, I shall argue that the closest parallels to this work are among so-called taSyoi 7cpoxp£7cxiKo{—discourses and dialogues intended to promote "conversion" to a philosophical community.

I. Social context: attraction and aversion to Judean culture in Rome

A. Attraction Fortunately, some germane features of Judean-Roman relations in R o m e are well attested. O n the one hand, Judean culture attracted considerable interest among Romans, even to the point of a conver­ sion that was perceived to involve the renunciation of one's native tradition. This conclusion does not depend on courageous inference from a jug handle, but is the only reasonable explanation of an array of evidence. It raises problems from a sociological perspective, for how could a R o m a n plausibly adopt the ways of another ethnic group and truly forsake his or her own (Goodman 1994: 1-37)? But we must bracket that question while we survey the sources. Because they have been widely discussed elsewhere and my conclusions here are not meant to be controversial, I discuss only what seems to me the most telling evidence. 1. Literary evidence T h e fullest extant portrayal of Judeans by a R o m a n author is that of Tacitus, w h o attempts to describe the Judean character in order to create a context for his account of the revolt in 6 6 - 7 4 (Histories

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

189

5.1-13). That Tacitus is familiar with many traditions about the Judeans is clear both because he says so and because his account intersects with various remarks in other authors. H e thus provides something of a compendium of current literary perspectives on the Judeans. T h e dominant theme here, in keeping with Tacitus' pur­ pose, is Judean misanthropy: they oppose the rest of humanity in their values. It is striking, however, that the first item mentioned by Tacitus in his proof of Judean depravity is the fact that "the worst rascals among other peoples, renouncing their ancestral traditions, always kept sending tribute and contributions to Jerusalem." H e continues: "those who are converted (transgressi) to their ways follow the same practice [circumcision], and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account" (5.5). Clearly, Tacitus did not invent the phenomenon of conversion to Judaism; he can only try to explain it away as the actions of the worst people (pessimi—presumably, the lower classes). Tacitus's perception that the Judeans invite life-changing conver­ sion is confirmed by other R o m a n authors. It is remarkable, since these others have very little to say about Judeans, that conversion should figure so largely in what they do say. For Epictetus (ca. 100 CE), according to Arrian's notes, it was already proverbial that, "When­ ever we observe someone caught in two directions, we are in the habit of saying (eicbGajiev Aiy£iv), 'He is not a Judean, but only plays the part' ({moKpivexcci). But when he takes upon himself the attitude of the one who has been immersed and made his choice (ocipeo|mxi), then he really is, and is called, a Judean" (Dissertations 2.9.20). This is the only place in which Epictetus singles out Judeans for special mention (twice he mentions their food laws alongside those of other n a t i o n s — 1 . 1 1 . 1 2 - 1 3 ; 1.22.4—by way of illustration). Interest in and conversion to Judean culture are c o m m o n enough that he can cite a proverbial saying in support of his point about being a true philosopher. We get the same impression from another contemporary, Juvenal, who satirically illustrates the potentially corrupting example of a parent with the example of a Judean sympathizer whose son goes as far as conversion by "putting aside his foreskin." Juvenal assumes, as do Epictetus and Tacitus, that this kind of conversion involves the com­ plete repudiation of one's traditional piety (Satires 5.14.96-106). Else­ where Juvenal has only passing references to Judeans' begging in

190

STEVE MASON

R o m e (1.3.14; 2.6.543-547). Their attraction of converts thus stands out as a noteworthy feature. Other literary allusions to J u d e a n attraction of proselytes—by Horace (Satires 1.4.139-43), Seneca (On Superstition in Augustine, City of God 6.11), and Celsus (True Word, in Origen, Against Celsus 5.41.6)— could be discussed, but their interpretation is more controversial. The three that I have introduced are valuable because they show us in­ dependent R o m a n writers reflecting commonplace assumptions about the Judeans: they commonly attract sympathizers and also full converts, w h o renounce native traditions in order to join them. Since these remarks are incidental, adduced as "givens" in the service of some other point, it is not likely that the authors invented or exaggerated the p h e n o m e n o n of conversion. 2. Particular cases In addition to these observations by R o m a n authors concerning the state of their society, we have several names of individuals in Rome, from the first to third centuries, w h o either expressed strong interest in Judean culture or actually made it their own. Some of these ap­ pear on funerary inscriptions from Judean cemeteries. According to H. Leon, seven Jewish epitaphs are of "indubitable proselytes" (Leon 1960: 254), though one might have doubts about the three-and-ahalf-year-old Irene. These proselytes were sufficiently welcomed by the community to be given proper Judean burials. Non-Judean sites have, in addition, turned up the epitaphs of four "reverers" (metuentes), w h o apparently associated themselves in some way with Judaism but were not considered proper Judeans, to borrow Epictetus's distinction. In terms of social status, it is noteworthy that one of the metuentes was a R o m a n knight; that two of the proselyte inscriptions at N o mentana were carved on marble, whereas most were simply painted on the grave closures; that five of the proselyte inscriptions are in Latin, although the vast majority of the Judean inscriptions are in the Greek of the newcomers to Rome; and that at least one of the proselytes—Veturia Paulla, w h o was buried in a sarcophagus and was the "mother" of two synagogues—seems to have been a woman of substance. Although this evidence is hardly decisive, in view of the small sample, it militates against Tacitus's rhetorical charge that converts to Judaism were of the basest sort. That only six or seven of Leon's 5 3 4 inscriptions—little more than 1%—certainly come from proselytes should not be taken as evidence

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

191

of their insignificant numbers. First, many of those buried m a y not have wished to record their conversion for posterity. Even in a Judean cemetery, social pressures m a y have encouraged converts to assimi­ late to the group as quickly as possible and not advertise their n e w status. Moreover, conversion was a capital crime from Hadrian's time onward (van der Horst: 72), the period from which most of the in­ scriptions come. Second, we may indeed have other proselytes behind such epithets as Iou8cuo(; and 'Eppccux;, or in the statement that a woman lived both well and "in Judaism" (Leon: 129). Third, the surviving family members w h o proudly recorded their loved one's conversion may well have been proselytes themselves. In view of these mitigating factors, it is impressive enough that the Judean inscrip­ tions of R o m e preserve any physical evidence of conversion. Although most converts would not have become famous, we also know the names of a few high-profile R o m a n proselytes from the surviving literature. Josephus mentions a prominent senator's wife (xcov ev d^icojiocTt yuvociKcov) during the reign of Tiberius named Fulvia. Having embraced the Judean ordinances ( v o p i j i o K ; 7ipoaeX,rjA,u0\)iav xoi<; 'IouSaiKoiq; Ant. 18.81), she was reportedly defrauded of gifts intended for the temple. Josephus further alleges that Nero's consort and wife, Poppea Sabina, was a God-fearer (Ant. 20.195), w h o twice intervened on behalf of Judean interests. Josephus had n o evident reason to claim Poppea's sympathies so long after Nero's rule, when the memories of both husband and wife were odious. Finally, D i o claims that Domitian executed the consul Flavius Clemens (95 CE) and exiled his wife Flavia Domitilla, though she was a relative of Domitian's, on charges of "atheism" (Dio 67.14.2). D i o immediately explains that this was the charge Domitian levelled also at "others who had drifted into Judean customs" (eq xoc TCGV 'IouSaicov fi0r| e^oKekXovzeq). T h e nautical verb "to drift" perhaps implies that there was a current of proselytes at the time. That there was significant interest in Judaism, at least, is also suggested by Suetonius, w h o claims that Domitian collected the Judean tax with the utmost severity, even from "those who lived as Judeans without professing Judaism" (Domitian 12: inprofessi Iudaicam viverent vitam). Because Suetonius and D i o indicate that Domitian eliminated ene­ mies on mere pretexts, and another version of the story has D o m ­ itilla embracing Christianity (Eusebius, Church History 3.18; cf. Lampe 1989: 166-172), we should not insist upon the real conversion of Clemens and Domitilla. Nevertheless, Dio's incidental notice about

192

STEVE MASON

the others who adopted Judean ways must point to some kind of real condition at that time, because he goes on to say (68.1.2) that one of Nerva's first policies was to stop admitting accusations of either impiety or adopting a Judean life (cuY aozfieiaq oik' 'Ioi)5aiico\) piov). Since Dio has already mentioned Nerva's reversal of the impiety charge (68.1.1), this repeated reference must be linked to the charge of adopting Judaism. Evidently, he assumes that adopting a Judean life results in impiety with respect to R o m a n tradition. That impression fits with the remarks of Tacitus, Epictetus, and Juvenal. 3. The legal situation of Judeans in Rome T h e question of Nerva's policy brings us to the third kind of evi­ dence for significant proselytism in R o m e , namely: throughout the entire period of our interest, a Judean propensity to seek proselytes is assumed in R o m a n legislation. In describing the three occasions on which disciplinary measures were taken against R o m a n Judeans, later writers typically allege pros­ elytizing efforts as causes. Thus, both of the Byzantine epitomes of Valerius Maximus's On Superstition (i.e., Paris and Nepotianus) claim that the Judeans were expelled from R o m e in 139 B C E for trying to transmit their sacred rites (described in Paris as "the cult of Jupiter Sabazius") to the R o m a n people. And everyone w h o writes about the expulsion of Judeans from R o m e in 19 C E connects it in some way with proselytism. Josephus claims that the affair resulted from the defrauding of the aristocratic convert Fulvia (Ant 18.81). Dio says that the Judeans, having flocked to R o m e in great numbers, "were converting many of the natives to their ways" (57.18.5a). Suetonius couples Judeans with Egyptians, and claims that Tiberius ordered all w h o had "embraced these superstitions" to burn their religious sym­ bols (Tiberius 36). Tacitus likewise groups Judeans and Egyptians, and says that those w h o had been "infected" with these superstitions had to leave (Annals 2.85). In the 40's, finally, Claudius undertook some kind of disiplinary action, possibly more than one, against the R o m a n Judeans. Although Suetonius has him expelling those Judeans "who were continually rioting at the instigation of Chrestus" (Claudius 25), D i o claims that he could not expel the Judeans because of their great numbers, but only forbade them to hold meetings; they were permitted to preserve their ancestral way of life (60.6.6). Dio does not give an explicit reason for Claudius's action, but his opening notice that their numbers had "once again increased greatly" (ji^eovdoavxac; a^Giq) seems to direct

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

193

the reader's attention back to his earlier remarks about Judean proselytism. In this context, permission to follow their own ancestral ways would be an imposed limitation: they should stop trying to induce others to follow those ways. Later emperors would remain concerned about conversion to Juda­ ism, apparently seeing it as a significant factor in the perceived weak­ ening of R o m a n traditions. Domitian's reform, according to which conversion to Judaism became a capital offence, though rescinded by Nerva, became law again with Hadrian's general prohibition of circumcision. If, as many think, Hadrian did not mean to proscribe Judaism per se, but only conversion, then his successor Antoninus Pius got it right when he prohibited the circumcision of non-Judeans. Proselytism evidently continued to merit legislation, however, for Septimius Severus in 1 9 8 / 8 9 imposed severe penalties on converts (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Septimius Severus 17.1). A century later, the jurist Paul prescribed the death penalty for those w h o circumcised non-Judeans, and exile for those w h o converted (Sentences 5.22.3-4). These prohibitions, as is well known, became a standard part of later Christian legislation. Whereas the central government was generally tolerant of foreign traditions, and may even have been conspicuously benevolent toward Judean communities around the empire, proselyt­ ism in R o m e was an ongoing problem for them. In the face of such diverse evidence, the only reasonable hypoth­ esis seems to be that gentile attraction and also full conversion to Judaism were easily observable phenomena during Josephus's resi­ dency in R o m e at the end of the first century. Since that much is admitted not only by scholars w h o have accepted the notion of a Jewish mission but also by those who seem to have little stake in the issue (Smallwood: 2 0 1 - 2 1 6 ; Leon 1960: 2 5 0 - 5 6 ) , and even by some who deny a Jewish mission—McKnight curiously suggests that the Roman situation was exceptional (McKnight 1991: 74)—we may leave the issue as provisionally setded. Attraction and conversion to Juda­ ism were readily observable in post-war R o m e . 1

B. Aversion There was, of course, another side. N o t everyone in the world capital was eager to convert. R o m a n literati tended to disparage Judean 1

C o h e n (1993: 2 6 - 2 7 ) h o l d s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e for c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m in R o m e is " a b u n d a n t a n d u n e q u i v o c a l . "

194

STEVE MASON

culture, partly because they disparaged all foreign cultures in R o m e and partly because Judeans had exclusivist traits that smacked of misanthropy. Egyptian accounts of Judean origins appear to have had some influence in R o m e , perhaps through the activities of Apion and other resident Alexandrians. These slanders have now been thoroughly documented, and we need not reproduce the evidence. Our interest is in the particular post-war situation in which Josephus found himself: Was the image of Judean culture in R o m e affected by the revolt? W e do not have much direct literary evidence, but we can piece together some clues. First, the highly visible post-war celebrations must have had an impact on R o m a n observers: after Vespasian's glorious return from his Judean campaign to become emperor in 69 (War 7.63-74) came the spectacle of Titus's triumphal march, with Judean rebel leaders being led through the streets to their execution, the sudden influx of Judean slaves, the issue of a commemorative ("Judea Capta") coin series, and the erection of the monumental Arch of Titus in the city centre. These displays can only have made life uncomfortable for R o m a n Judeans and sympathizers. We do not know whether there were reprisals against Judeans in R o m e itself during or after the war, but it should not surprise us if there were, for Josephus claims that "hatred of the Judeans was everywhere at its height" when the war began, and in other major centres this hatred had resulted in massacres (War 7.51, 57, 367-368). Our clearest evidence for anti-Judean sentiments in R o m e is the simple fact that Josephus devoted so much energy, immediately after his arrival there, to writing an account of the revolt that would re­ fute current anti-Judean stories. Before his own history, he claims, the only accounts in circulation were written by people who either flattered the Romans or hated the Judeans (War 1.2), which meant in either case an anti-Judean bias. H e writes because he considers it "monstrous" that the truth should be lost to these writers (1.6), who were doing outrage to the truth (Ant. 1.4). H e elaborates: They desire to represent the Romans as a great nation, and yet they continually depreciate and disparage the actions of the Judeans. But I fail to see how the conquerors of a puny people deserve to be ac­ counted great. (War 1.7-8) T o find out more about these other accounts, which are all lost, perhaps the best we can do is to read the War in a mirror, so to

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

195

speak. This is a dangerous practice for particulars, but it should work for the main themes. It turns out that Josephus is greatly concerned (a) to dissociate the revolt from the national character, by blaming it on a small handful of aberrant rebels w h o have now been punished, and (b) to show that it was the Judeans' own G o d w h o punished the nation for the rebels' impiety. W e might reasonably suppose, there­ fore, that the R o m a n authors in question had argued the reverse: the revolt was symptomatic of the national character and the out­ come was a victory of the R o m a n Gods. In fact, these very themes appear in later R o m a n authors w h o deal with the revolt. Tacitus disparages the Judean character as con­ text for his story of the revolt (Hist. 5.1-13). Philostratus's Euphrates likewise complains, in relation to the war, "The Judeans have long been in revolt, not only against the Romans, but against humanity" (Apollonius of Tyana 5.33). Celsus, in the footsteps of Cicero long be­ fore (For Flaccus 28.69), appeals to the Judean defeat in refutation of its claims to a uniquely powerful G o d (Against Celsus 5.41). Minucius Felix's Caecilius contends that the Judean G o d had so little power that he is now enslaved by the R o m a n gods (Octavius 10; cf. 33). Since we find such views in later authors, since they are predictable responses to the war, and since Josephus confronts them direcdy in his account, we may conclude that they were already present in the lost histories of the revolt by Josephus' contemporaries. T h e image of Judeans in R o m e suffered, in both popular and literary circles, as a result of the war. If we try now to paint a rounded picture of the Judean situation in R o m e after the war, we end up with something like this. Ever since its arrival in R o m e , Judean culture proved attractive to gentiles of different ethnic backgrounds and social strata; most of the evi­ dence for conversion seems to involve native Romans or Romanized elements of the population. This is not the place to speculate on the reasons for that attraction, but it seems that attraction and full con­ version, with a conscious repudiation of one's native tradition, were well-known. O n the other hand, the revolt seriously tarnished the Judean image. T h e war and its aftermath must have had social and psychological effects on sympathizers and would-be proselytes, even before Domitian's prosecution of Judaizers. W e should like to learn a great deal more about Josephus's social context, but these general and secure observations must suffice for our purposes—as background to his Contra Apionem.

196

STEVE MASON

II. Literary context: ^ J u d e a n Antiquities W h e n Josephus writes Contra Apionem at the end of the first century, he appeals direcdy to his earlier Judean Antiquities: the new work, he says, will try again to do what his magnum opus had failed to do (CA 1.1-5). If we are to assess the purpose of Contra Apionem, we must therefore have in mind some notion of the purpose and scope of the Antiquities. Fortunately, we enjoy almost universal agreement on the main themes of Ant.: Josephus writes to defend Judean history and culture before a gentile audience. His apologetic motive has been amply demonstrated by studies of particular passages—most notably Louis Feldman's investigations of how he portrays biblical characters (listed in Feldman 1993: 594—96). These have shown that Josephus carefully reworks his sources in part to refute c o m m o n slanders about Judean origins and misanthropic tendencies. Explicitly apologetic statements appear also in his justification for including the pro-Judean decrees ( 1 4 . 1 - 3 , 186-187; 16.175). Agreement about Josephus's apologetic motive in Ant. is so widespread that even those w h o follow Laqueur's cynical view of the War as a piece of R o m a n propaganda (Laqueur 1920) must posit either that Josephus repented between the two works or that he found a new way of serving his political interests (e.g., Smith 1956: 7 4 - 7 9 ; Cohen 1979: 1 4 8 - 5 1 , 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; Schwartz 1990: 170-208). I would like to suggest, however, that the apologetic motive, which is obviously present, does not satisfactorily explain the Antiquities. Having completed the urgent task of exonerating Judeans from com­ plicity in the revolt (in War), why expend so much energy—and Josephus admits his weariness (1.7)—writing another twenty volumes? Simple refutation of slanders about Judean origins could have been done more compactly. Moreover, nearly half of the Antiquities (book 13 onward), including four volumes on Herod and a detailed ac­ count of the emperor Gaius's death, has nothing to do with ancient Judean history. What then? D i d Josephus extend the Antiquities to twenty volumes in order to match Dionysius's famous Roman Antiquities, as Thackeray suggested (1928: 69)? Did he haplessly wander through the post-biblical period, cutting and pasting large chunks of undigested source mate­ rial? Such views were popular during the heyday of extreme source criticism, but they have long since been proven untenable (e.g.,

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

197

Laqueur 1920; Attridge 1976; Franxman 1979; F e l d m a n / H a t a 1988; Krieger 1994). Was the apologetic of Antiquities, then, meant to serve some urgent political goal, perhaps to ingratiate Josephus with the emerging rabbinic coalition at Yavneh (Smith 1956: 7 4 - 7 9 ; C o h e n 1979: 1 4 8 - 5 1 , 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; Schwartz 1990: 170-208)? Such an interpre­ tation runs afoul of the text itself and its implied audience at every turn: Josephus write for gentiles a rambling narrative that is mostly hostile toward the Pharisees and evinces no obvious "rabbinic" con­ nections (e.g., Mason 1988, 1991, 1992a). Thus, the identification of an apologetic motive with respect to Judean origins, though accurate as far as it goes, does not explain Josephus's gargantuan effort in composing the 60,000 lines of Antiquities (20.267). It seems to me that the lengthy preface to Antiquities promises much more than apologetic. Indeed, a defensive posture is remarkably absent. The whole body of the work sustains a positive appeal to gentile readers, to which the defensive elements are entirely subordinate.

A. The preface

(1.1-26)

After recalling his account of the War (1.1-4), Josephus claims that he is now writing the Antiquities in the belief that the "whole Greekspeaking world" will find this translation of the Judeans' political his­ tory and constitution "worthy of serious pursuit" (d^iav GTcou&nq; 1.5). That his global ambition is highly exaggerated should not blind us to its tone; he does not suggest that he is out primarily to combat false presentations, as he had done in the War (War 1.3, 6, 9). Josephus allows that he had intended to include some ancient Judean history in his earlier work. As he n o w phrases it, his goal would have been to describe Judean origins and fortunes, "the great lawgiver under whom they were trained in piety and the exercise of the other virtues," and all of their (noble) wars before the unfortunate conflict with R o m e (1.6). Josephus assumes the reader's interest in things Judean. Josephus next introduces his patron Epaphroditus, w h o serves as a paradigm for the implied reader: he is a curious and beneficent gentile. It was because of his persistent eagerness to support the producers of "beneficial and beautiful work" (%pf|Giiiov r\ KOCAXSV) that Josephus persevered in this noblest ( K a ^ i a x a ) undertaking (1.9). There is no hint of defensiveness here. That Josephus really did expect an interested gentile readership, and this is not merely a superficial rhetorical ploy, is confirmed by an abundance of incidental notices throughout the

198

STEVE MASON

Antiquities (e.g. 1.128-129; 3.317; 1 4 . 1 - 3 , 186-187; 16.175; 20.262) and its appendix, the Life (1, 12c). Josephus's outward-looking tone continues when he proposes that the translation of the L X X was a model for his work. H e ponders whether, before his time, any Greeks had been eager to learn of Judean history, and whether Judeans had been willing to share it. O n the one side, he cites Ptolemy IPs keen interest in the Judean laws and constitution, while on the other, the high priest Eleazar did not jealously keep (cpGoveco) from the king "the enjoyment of a bene­ fit" (1.11). Indeed, Eleazar's willingness to share the laws reflected the Judean tradition not to make a secret of good things (xcbv KOCAXOV; 1.11). Josephus therefore will imitate the high priest's magnanimity (|i£Yata)\|n)%{cc), since in his own day there are also many lovers of learning (
CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

199

therefore, but will be clear to "any w h o care to peruse" his work (1.14). The second outstanding feature of Josephus's thesis is related to the first, namely: conformity to the Judean laws promises happiness! H e will repeat the point in 1.20: those w h o follow G o d , the father and Lord of all (rcdvxcov), w h o beholds all things (rcdvTot ejuPAirccov), find a happy life (euScujuova p(ov). T h e word eudaimonia in these pas­ sages is worthy of close attention, because it was the recognized goal of philosophical schools in Josephus's day (e.g., Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 10.6.1; Epictetus, Dissertations 1.4.32; cf. Weiss 1979: 4 2 7 - 2 8 ) . T w o generations after Josephus, Lucian would take pleasure in ex­ posing the philosophers' competing and contradictory recipes for happiness (e.g., Philosophies for Sale, Hermotimus). But his many satires on this issue are only effective because philosophers promised eudaimonia to their adherents. In that context, it is noteworthy that Josephus presents Judaism much more as a philosophy than as an ethnic cult. T h e remainder of the preface is taken up with philosophical reflections on nature, reason, and law, which Josephus concludes by saying that, if anyone wishes to search further, he will find the inquiry "profound and highly philosophical" (1.25). This is not merely an ad hoc device for the preface, for he will portray some of the key figures in Judean his­ tory—notably Abraham, Moses, Solomon, and Daniel—as peerless philosophers in their own right. A n d of course he presents Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes as schools within the national philosophy (Ant. 13.171-173; 18.12-18). Further, he introduces the word eu8aiuovia some forty-seven times into his biblical paraphrase, though it is missing from the Greek Bible. Evidently, he means to present J u ­ daism as an option, the preferred option, in the philosophical mar­ ketplace. Josephus's positive advocacy of Judaism seems confirmed, finally, by a series of direct appeals to the reader, for example (1.15): At the outset, then, I exhort (rcapocKocAxb) those who engage these vol­ umes to place their thought in reliance upon God (xfiv y v c b u r i v Oetp rcpooavexEiv) and to prove (5oKi|id£eiv) our lawgiver, whether he has had a worthy conception of God's nature (xfyv cpwiv a^icaq amen) KaT£v6r|o-£) and has always attributed to Him behaviour appropriate to His power, keeping his teaching concerning Him free of all the grotesque mythology current among others (icd0apov . . . n a p ' aXkoxq acxwovoq iLvQoXoyiaq).

200

STEVE MASON

This forthright challenge to discover for oneself the superiority of the Judean constitution fits precisely with what w e know of the implied reader via Epaphroditus, with the paradigm of the L X X translation, and with Josephus's repeated claim that the Judean laws bring hap­ piness to anyone w h o follows them. H e takes the offensive here by employing a polemical contrast ( a v y K p i a i q ) with all other traditions— the native traditions o f the implied readers! H e does not write, then, as a member o f a beleaguered community trying desperately to fend off slander. Rather, he expects a friendly gentile audience. Josephus's appeal to "taste and see" governs also the excursus on Moses (1.18-26). Josephus remarks that, whereas other legislators have credited the Gods with disgraceful human practices, and so have provided a poor example to the wicked, Moses' noble conception of G o d carries with it the encouragement of human virtue and the severe punishment of human vice (1.22-23). Josephus therefore advocates J u d e a n culture as a practicable system for dealing with human behaviour; he is not merely discussing antiquity. Again, he entreats (TKXPOCKOCAXG) the reader to make a careful examination (RCOIEIAGAI XFJV

E^EXAAIV) o f his work against this thesis [npbq iamr\v %r\v IMOGEOIV) of the superiority of Judean culture (1.24). H e closes the extension of the preface with the expectation that there will be those w h o wish to search out the reasons for every aspect o f the culture, though he cannot deal with those n o w (1.25). H e expects, then, an eager gentile readership.

B. Body of the Antiquities Space does not permit a proper treatment of the body of Antiquities. Fortunately, I can defer to the many studies of Josephus's biblical paraphrase (books 1-11), which show that he has carefully rewritten his source material to convey the themes of the preface (e.g., Attridge 1976; Franxman 1979; Feldman, 1990; Begg 1993). What I would emphasize here, in distinction from the studies mentioned, is that the solicitous tone of the preface is also sustained throughout the work. Josephus wants to show that the key figures of Judean tradition represent the oldest, noblest, and most excellent features o f human civilization. It was Abraham w h o first conceived of God as one and first taught the elements of science to the Egyptians (1.154-168), Moses w h o laid down the best constitution ever known (3.223), and Solomon w h o was the wisest philosopher-king in human

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

201

history (8.). In his synthesis of the Midianite Balaam's four prophe­ cies concerning Israel (cf. N u m . 22~24; cf. Feldman 1993a), Josephus takes the opportunity to reinforce his theme: the Judean nation is singularly happy (et)8a{|icov), Balaam says, indeed happier than all other nations (rcavxcov euSaiuoveaxepoi TCOV VKO TOV T^XIOV) because it alone has been granted God's providence (rcpovoia) as an eternal guide (4.114). In the future, Balaam continues, Judeans will dominate the entire earth by population and by fame (4.115-116). T h e sacred writings of the Judeans—notably those of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel—have predicted the entire course of human history, and this fact was happily admitted by the famous kings Cyrus, Artaxerxes, and Alexander. Innocent of Porphyry's insights into Daniel, Josephus truly believes that the predictions of the Judean prophets have been verifiably fulfilled. H e is eager to share this knowledge with his gentile readers. H e exults also in the fact that Judeans continue to exercise Solomonic powers of exorcism and the ability to predict the future. Thus, although Josephus does defend Judean antiquity from cur­ rent slanders, his defensive strategies serve a more comprehensive advocacy of Judean culture. 2

C. Conversion in the Antiquities Shaye Cohen is the only critic w h o has tried to work out a compre­ hensive picture ofJosephus's attitude toward conversion (Cohen 1987a). In the article in question he does not seek to explain the motives of Antiquities and Contra Apionem, though in his earlier work he accepted Morton Smith's view (1956) that Josephus wrote Antiquities/Life to throw in his lot with the rising fortunes of the Pharisees at Yavneh after the war (Cohen 1979: 1 4 8 - 1 5 1 , 237-238). Cohen contends that, of seven instances of conversion recounted in the Antiquities, six (three forced conversions of neighbouring peoples by Hasmoneans—Ant. 1 3 . 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 , 3 1 8 - 3 1 9 , 397; two unfortu­ nate conversions to facilitate marriage of Herodian w o m e n — 2 0 . 1 3 9 , 145; and the conversion of Fulvia, w h o was duped by some Judean

2

T h a t J o s e p h u s fails t o m e n t i o n p r o s e l y t i s m h e r e d o e s n o t ( p a c e C o h e n 1987a: 4 2 1 - 4 2 2 ) i m p l y his distaste for c o n v e r s i o n . O n t h e c o n t r a r y , his c o n t i n u e d assertion before i n t e r e s t e d gentile r e a d e r s t h a t J u d e a n s a r e u n i q u e l y h a p p y w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y h a v e t h e effect of e n c o u r a g i n g c o n v e r s i o n .

202

STEVE MASON

charlatans—18.81-84) have strongly negative overtones. H e con­ cedes that Josephus does look favourably on gentile adherents to Judaism, as distinct from converts, w h o appear in the narrative (421). Nevertheless, "In his [Josephus's] view, Judaism is not a missionary religion" (423). T h e zeal for conversion reflected in the seventh epi­ sode, concerning the royal house of Adiabene, is therefore peculiar in Antiquities', it should be explained either as Josephus's careless inclu­ sion of an uncongenial source or, better, on the ground that the story "concerns the propagation of Judaism outside the R o m a n empire in a kingdom which resisted the Parthian kings, the enemies of R o m e " (Cohen 1987a: 425). I do not claim to understand this suggestion, and Cohen does not clarify it. Having concluded that Antiquities (minus the Adiabene episode) is opposed to conversion, Cohen must also isolate Contra Apionem, which warmly welcomes converts, as untypical of Josephus's perspective. O n the basis of some well-known parallels with Philo's writings, he pro­ poses that Josephus took over the later tract more or less bodily from another author, that its perspective is that of "an Alexandrian J e w of the first half of the first century" (Cohen 1987a: 425). Cohen is ap­ parently willing in this case to override his usual axiom, that "Jose­ phus was not a mindless transcriber of sources" (Cohen 1987a: 425). I cannot debate Cohen's argument point by point here, but it seems to me that he makes dubious assumptions about Josephus's "negative overtones" and ignores important clues in the preface and structure of the whole work. His excision of the Adiabene episode—by far the most extensive conversion account in the whole narrative—as unrep­ resentative of Josephus's views is unpersuasive. His cavalier assign­ ment of Contra Apionem to another hand is an improbable stratagem. T h e language and major themes of that tractate—e.g., the contrast between Greek and Oriental historiography, the strong priestly bias, and the itemization of anti-Judean slanders—are fully anticipated in his earlier works. O f the seven references to conversion in the Antiquities, only the first and last are described in any length; the other five are inciden­ tal to the narrative. First, Josephus retells at length the story of 3

3

S e t h S c h w a r t z deals w i t h Contra Apionem in a similar w a y , t h o u g h for different r e a s o n s . H i s r e c e n t a t t e m p t t o r e a d all of J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r writings as efforts t o c a r v e o u t a p l a c e for himself in t h e p o s t - w a r J u d e a n political w o r l d leads h i m to dismiss Contra Apionem as basically n o n - J o s e p h a n ( S c h w a r t z 1990: 2 3 , 5 6 n. 127). It c a n n o t easily b e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h a p i c t u r e of J o s e p h u s as self-serving o p p o r t u n i s t .

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

203

Hainan's failed plot to annihilate the "entire Judean nation" (11.184, 211-212). Like his earlier account of Daniel, this story allows him to show how G o d has preserved those w h o follow the laws, in spite of all human designs. Josephus joyfully reports that H a m a n and his co­ conspirators ultimately suffered the violent death that they had planned for the Judean people (11.266-267, 2 8 1 - 2 9 3 ; cf. 212). Further, once Mordecai had been shown favour by the king, many Persians con­ verted to Judaism in order to avoid reprisals (11.285; cf. Esther 8.17). So the wicked Persians were forced to adopt the very way of life that they had tried to eradicate. T h e whole story is triumphantly told, and Cohen's supposition that Josephus opposed these conversions (Cohen 1987a: 422) is hard to credit. Josephus's editorial remarks (11.268) and the king's letters on behalf of the Judeans (11.272-283) make his points clearly enough. In his narrative of Hasmonean history, Josephus incidentally m e n ­ tions the forced conversions of Idumea and Iturea by J o h n Hyrcanus and Aristobulus I, respectively. Cohen cites a passage from the Life (113), in which Josephus himself allows gentile refugees to remain uncircumcised during the war, to argue that Josephus must therefore have opposed these forced conversions by the Hasmoneans (Cohen 1987a: 423). T h e problem is that all of the contextual indicators in the Hasmonean story point in the opposite direction. Hyrcanus's action is recounted as part of a glowing tale of his virtuous reign, which culminates in Josephus's famous declaration of the prince's unique favour with the deity (13.299-300; cf. 282, 2 8 4 , 288). Aristobulus's conversion of the Itureans, similarly, receives explicit praise in Jose­ phus's closing remarks on this king's reign (13.319). Josephus's comment in the Life, concerning his own c o m m a n d of the Galilee, reflects an entirely different rhetorical and historical situation. His stated reason for not circumcising his guests is that they should be able to make their own choice to worship G o d (8eiv EKOCGTOV KOCTCC TTiv eott)xot> rcpooupeoiv xov 9e6v e v a e p e i v ) , and not be forced to do so lest they regret having fled to the Judeans (Life 113). This reasoning certainly leaves open the prospect of conversion, and it fits well with Josephus's whole project of persuasion in Antiquities/Life and Contra Apionem. It has no bearing on the Hasmonean golden age. Closer to his own time, Josephus incidentally mentions the con­ version of the R o m a n aristocrat Fulvia (18.82), in order to explain the awkward fact that Judeans had been expelled from R o m e by the otherwise gentle Tiberius (18.84). H e also mentions the voluntary

204

STEVE MASON

circumcision of two gentile kings w h o wished to marry Herodian princesses (20.139, 145). Cohen is quite right that none of these stories turned out happily for the converts in question, but his inference that Josephus therefore means to discourage conversion runs counter to the narrative indicators. Josephus only mentions the defrauding of Fulvia by some Judeans in R o m e in order to isolate them as aber­ rant specimens of the nation (18.81); he laments that all Roman Judeans were punished for the actions of these few miscreants (18.84). H e surely does not mean to say to his readers: "If you convert, you may be defrauded as well!" T h e moral lies elsewhere, in explaining the expulsion under Tiberius, to which Fulvia's conversion is mere background. Similarly, the circumcisions of Azizus, king of Emesa, and Polemo, king of Cilicia, to marry Drusilla and Berenike, respectively, are mere scenery for Josephus's main points. In the first case, we are told that Azizus married Drusilla after another king had turned down the marriage because he was unwilling to convert (20.139). Azizus's will­ ingness to convert, by contrast, provides a foil for the main story. Namely: Felix, the new Judean governor, is so overcome with passion for Drusilla that he induces her to leave Azizus and marry him, although he does not intend to make the slightest concession to Judean tradition. Josephus's verdict on this arrangement is perfectly clear: in marrying Felix, Drusilla "transgress [ed] the ancestral laws" [20.143]. Josephus immediately notes that the unfortunate child of this mar­ riage was killed in the eruption of Vesuvius (20.144), presumably as a token of divine retribution (cf. the earlier David and Bathsheba story), and he goes on to detail Felix's other impieties (20.162-163, 182). N o criticism of the jilted convert Azizus is implied; unlike the evil Felix, he did the right thing. Likewise, Josephus is scandalized by Berenike's persuasion of Po­ lemo to be circumcised and marry her only so that she can quash the rumours of her incestuous relations with her brother (20.145). Both of these cases come in a section of volume 20 in which Josephus is piling up examples of divergence from the laws that finally brought about God's punishment in the destruction of the temple (20.160, 1 6 6 - 1 6 7 , 1 7 9 - 1 8 0 , 184, 207, 214). H e does not mean to suggest, of course, that future converts to Judaism also run the risk of abuse by Herodian princesses. There is no moral in the background informa­ tion that certain people converted. That he could cite these conver­ sion stories as background without explanation does, however, imply

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

205

that conversion to Judaism was a c o m m o n enough occurrence to be easily understood by his readers.

D . A closing story with a moral: conversions in Adiabene The decisive proof that Josephus warmly welcomed converts is the only full conversion story in Antiquities: it concerns the royal family of Adiabene. This is the longest single episode in volume 20, occupying about one quarter of the book (20.17-96). Its position in the narrative constitutes a massive contextual rebuttal of Cohen's attempt to tease an anti-conversion stance out of the incidental references to conver­ sion in volume 20. T h e Adiabene story precedes and completely over­ shadows those incidental notices. This story has been widely read for what it might reveal histori­ cally about the mechanics of conversion or about Josephus's sources (Schalit 1975; Neusner 1964; Collins 1985: 177-180; Schiffinan 1987; Segal 1990: 9 9 - 1 0 1 ) . O u r interest, however, is with the literary ques­ tion: What does Josephus hope to achieve by including this lengthy story here? T h e account is plainly his, for it is shot through with his language and evocations of his earlier narratives (contra, e.g., Schiffirian 1987: 294). H o w does it serve his purpose? 4

4

Schiffman (294) a r g u e s t h a t t h e unfulfilled cross-references h e r e ( 2 0 . 4 8 , 5 3 , 96) i n d i c a t e t h a t J o s e p h u s c o p i e d s o m e s o u r c e w i t h e x t r e m e carelessness ( " d i d little, if a n y t h i n g , t o modify this p a s s a g e " ) . M y r e s p o n s e : (a) T h e cross-references a r e t o a n t i c i p a t e d p a s s a g e s , a n d t h e y m a y i n d e e d b e p a r t i a l l y fulfilled w i t h i n t h e n a r r a t i v e (e.g., 2 0 . 4 8 in 6 9 - 9 1 ) . T h e y m a y also reflect J o s e p h u s ' s o w n unfulfilled p l a n s , o f w h i c h h e h a d m a n y (20.267). I n a n y c a s e , t h e s e f o r w a r d - l o o k i n g r e f e r e n c e s a r e characteristic o f Ant. 2 0 ( 2 0 . 1 4 4 , 147), in m a t e r i a l t h a t clearly d o e s n o t c o m e f r o m t h e p u t a t i v e A d i a b e n i a n s o u r c e , (b) M o r e serious p r o b l e m s i n J o s e p h u s a r e unful­ filled references t o m a t e r i a l a l r e a d y (allegedly) c o v e r e d , w h i c h o c c u r fairly often i n t h e earlier p a r t s o f Antiquities ( 1 3 . 3 6 , 108). B u t e v e n i n t h o s e cases, o n e c a n n o t c l a i m t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s t a k e n o v e r his s o u r c e u n d i g e s t e d (cf. G a f n i o n 1 M a c e , t h e s o u r c e in q u e s t i o n for t h e p a s s a g e s cited f r o m Ant. 13). T h o s e n a r r a t i v e s h a v e in g e n e r a l b e e n s h o w n t o b e a r t h e c l e a r m a r k s o f J o s e p h u s ' s a u t h o r i a l h a n d , (c) E v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s h a n d in t h e A d i a b e n e story i n c l u d e s : t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c J o s e p h a n i n t r o ­ d u c t i o n (20.17); t h e e m p h a s i s o n G o d ' s n p o v o i a — o n e o f t h e m a i n t h e m e s o f Antiq­ uities (Attridge 1 9 7 6 : 6 7 - 7 0 ; cf. Ant. 2 0 . 1 8 , 91); J o s e p h u s ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e m p h a s i s o n R o m a n invincibility a n d f o r t u n e ( 2 0 . 6 9 - 7 1 ) ; his c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c l a i m t h a t success e n g e n d e r s " e n v y a n d h a t r e d , " a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g e v o c a t i o n o f his o w n J o s e p h story ( 2 0 . 1 9 - 2 2 ; cf. 2 . 9 - 1 0 ) ; his r e p r i s e o f t h e n o t i c e in Ant. 1 . 9 2 - 9 3 a b o u t t h e s t o r y of N o a h ' s a r k (20.25); his typical u s e o f o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l a n g u a g e (e.g., aKpijteia 5OK£IV in 2 0 . 4 3 ; e\>ae|teia in 20.75); a n d t h e d e l i b e r a t e r e s t a t e m e n t o f his c e n t r a l thesis w i t h i n this story (20.48).

206

STEVE MASON

T h e basic message is clear. Josephus begins with a statement of the subject: "Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates changed their way of life to accord with the customs of the Judeans" (eiq xa Ioo8a{cov E0T| xov piov fxexePa^ov; 20.17). If w e have righdy under­ stood the bulk of the Antiquities, the royal family's action should not occasion surprise, for conversion would be the logical consequence of having discovered the noblest set of laws in existence. But a curious reader might well ask: " H o w could such highly visible gentile rulers adopt a foreign way of life, when I myself would face all sorts of social obstacles if I converted?" That is the question Josephus answers, and he does so emphatically. Under the influence of his wives and a Judean merchant, we are told, the prince Izates first began to worship G o d according to the tradition of the Judeans (20.34). When Izates found out that his mother had also been attracted to Judean ways (20.38), through a different teacher, he became eager to convert fully (jnexaxiGriiii). H e desired this even though he knew that to become a real Judean would re­ quire circumcision (20.38). Tension builds in the story as w e read that both his mother and his Judean teacher agreed that in his case circumcision would be most dangerous because of public perceptions. T h e reader's question is: will Izates do it, and if he does, will he survive? Josephus thus makes it clear that, if any would-be convert had a reason to refrain from circumcision, Izates did (20.38-42; cf. 20.47). In such circumstances, he could be assured of divine pardon for omitting the rite (20.42). Josephus makes this alternative perfectly reasonable, and allows that the pious Izates was content with it for a time. But when another teacher, whose precision in the laws Josephus respects (20.43), insisted that conversion required circumcision, Izates immediately complied (20.46). After noting that Izates' mother and former teacher became afraid, Josephus editorializes: ,

It was God who was to prevent their fears from being realized. For although Izates himself and his children were often threatened with destruction, God preserved them. . . . God thus demonstrated that those who fix their eyes on Him and trust in Him alone do not lose the reward of their piety. (20.48) W e are still only half-way through the story, and Josephus takes the remainder to illustrate the beneficial effects of Izates' conversion on world affairs, and the divine protection of his family. H e prospered and was universally admired (20.49); he and his mother supported

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

207

the needy of Jerusalem during a famine (20.53); he used his influ­ ence to restore the Parthian king Artabanus to his rightful throne (20.66); Izates was himself protected by G o d from the Parthian Vardanes (20.72) and then from two separate plots instigated by the nobles of Adiabene (20.76-91). In these last cases, Josephus empha­ sizes that Izates' conversion to Judaism was the cause of hatred (20.77, 81), but Izates entrusted himself to G o d (20.85). Indeed, the Arab king enlisted by the nobles makes the issue a contest between his own power and that of Izates' God, saying that "even the G o d whom he worshipped would be unable to deliver him from the king's hands" (20.88). But of course G o d did intervene to spare Izates. Thus Josephus amply demonstrates his assertion that G o d rewarded Izates' commitment to a proper conversion (20.48). And the convert Helena's memory too is forever blessed because of her benefactions (20.53). T o be sure, this lengthy story illustrates many consistent themes of the narrative: G o d rewards virtue and punishes wickedness, always maintaining control of history to spare the righteous in spite of hu­ man designs. But it is fair to ask whether the gentile reader should not have learned somewhat more from this final major episode— namely, that full conversion to Judaism is a good thing. It frequently arouses the hatred of one's fellow nationals, and so it may cause great difficulty for the convert, but G o d rewards the faithful. If this is the story's message, then the royal house of Adiabene, at the end of the Antiquities narrative, serve to fulfil the expectations created at the beginning. Following in the footsteps of Epaphroditus, they too are persuaded of Judaism's beauty, embrace it fully, and are not disappointed. Note incidentally that the story assumes the ubiquity of Judeans who are willing to guide foreigners through conversion. It mentions three such individuals: Ananias, Eleazar, and the unnamed figure who first coached Helena (20.35). We conclude that the scope and tone of Antiquities are not adequately explained by an apologetic motive, although that motive is surely present. Rather, Josephus effectively provides a primer in Judean culture for interested gentiles; he even shows how God rewards sincere converts. O f course, he does not punctuate each volume with forth­ right exhortations to conversion; the appeal is more subde and operates at various levels. Nevertheless, his appeal is unmistakable and, in view of the fact that he wrote this work in R o m e under Domitian's reign, when judaizing was particularly hazardous, it seems courageous.

208

STEVE MASON

III. Aims of Contra Apionem T h e preface to Contra Apionem (1.1 —5) makes it a sequel to the Antiq­ uities. This valuable little work is usually mined for its quotations of otherwise lost sources but seldom read in light of Josephus's aims, which are admittedly difficult to understand on most accounts. Had the twenty-volume Antiquities been intended as a defensive work, as most critics think, but unsuccessful in its apologetic aim, then it is odd that the weary Josephus (Ant. 1.7-8) would continue the exercise in futility by writing another two volumes on the same theme. Does he really think that he will change the minds of those who slander Judean origins, if they remain unpersuaded by his twenty-volume history? Those scholars who see Josephus as a quisling, who wrote the War as a lackey of R o m e and Antiquities as an opportunistic work of repentance or self-promotion, have a particularly hard time ex­ plaining this extra expenditure of effort in the service of Judean tra­ dition. Cohen (1987a: 425) and Seth Schwartz are forced to conclude that it is not really a production of Josephus at all (Schwartz 1990: 23, 56 n. 127). But this proposal is untenable. T h e work is replete with Josephan language and themes, and his systematic refutation of slanders about Jewish antiquity here (summarized in CA 2.228-90) was already woven into the fabric of the Antiquities. I would argue that both the form and content of the tract, not to mention the creative energy that they reflect, are best understood if Josephus is here continuing his effort to further interest in Ju­ dean culture, including a recommendation of conversion. Lacking space for an analysis of the whole text, I focus here on the preface and structure, then on a few key passages, and finally on the ques­ tion of genre.

A. Preface and overview Josephus dedicates this last work to the patron of Antiquities-Life (1.1; 2.1, 196). Epaphroditus, the gentile with a deep interest in Judean culture, continues to serve as a paradigm of the implied reader. That Josephus has such an image in mind is confirmed by his closing address, "to you, Epaphroditus, w h o are a devoted lover of truth [cf. Ant. 1.12] and for your sake to any who, like you, may wish to know the facts about our race" (2.196). Although Josephus complains about the fact that certain people continue to slander Judean history in

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

209

spite of his Antiquities, neither that work nor the present one were written for the slanderers themselves; Josephus still expects a welldisposed and curious gentile audience. As the older title of the Contra Apionem ("Concerning the Antiquity of the Judeans"; cf. Eusebius, Church History 3.9.4) suggests, this work shares the same theme as Antiquities. Josephus n o w summarizes his purpose in the Antiquities as three-fold: to show the extreme antiquity of the Judean race (over 5 0 0 0 years), its unique foundation and character, and the way in which it came to inhabit Judea (1.1). At least, these are the aspects of Antiquities that he n o w wishes to develop further: if asked about the work in general, he might have said more. Although the audience a n d general theme remain the same, Josephus changes his approach and genre. W e have seen that the Antiquities basically told the Judean story. Josephus occasionally punc­ tuates that story with positive appeals to the reader and brief refuta­ tions of slander, but both the positive and negative judgements are almost always implicit. What changes in the Contra Apionem is that Josephus will now place the historical material directly in the service of his forthright positive and negative appeals. H e claims that he will now refute Judaism's detractors, correct the ignorance of others, and "teach all those w h o wish to know the truth concerning the antiquity of our race" (1.3). Contra Apionem is therefore a streamlined, methodical essay, which may be schematized as follows: INTRODUCTION (1.1-59) [Exordium] 1.1-5 General Introduction: recapitulation of Antiquities; reasons for writing now. 1.6-59 Programmatic "Digression": Greek and Oriental Historians [Narratio?]. Oriental historians are the best, and the Judeans are the best of them. BODY (1.60-2.286)

I. Proof of Judean Antiquity [Probatio] (a) Reasons for Greek Silence about Judeans (1.60-68) (b) Oriental Evidence for Judean Antiquity: Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldean (1.69-160) (c) Overlooked Greek Evidence for Judean Antiquity (1.161-218) II. Refutation of Slanders, including Apion's, concerning Judean an­ tiquity (1.219-320; 2.1-144) [Rejutatio]

210

STEVE MASON

CONCLUSION (2.145-296) [Peroratio] 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 8 6 Positive Portrayal of Judean Culture 2 . 2 8 7 - 2 9 6 Summary and Epilogue After an opening digression in which he challenges the notion that Greek writers should be privileged as the source of all knowledge, Josephus moves to the main argument. First, he will show that Judean culture is old, even though that point is not widely understood. Second, he will refute, one by one, the Judeans chief literary opponents. Finally, he will offer a positive synopsis of Judean culture on its own terms—in effect, an extended and highly charged peroration. O n the face of it then, about half of the work (the middle part) is denudative and half persuasive. O n closer analysis, however, even the denuncia­ tive material attempts to show the superiority of Judean culture. Throughout, Josephus makes use of polemical contrast (cvyKpioiq) between Judean and gentile cultures. W e shall take up the main units in order, but focus our attention on the final section. 5

B. Body of Contra Apionem Josephus introduces his positive appeal into his so-called "digression" (1.57), which anticipates some important features of the later argu­ ment, when he asserts that (i) Oriental historians in general have older and more trustworthy historical records than the Greeks; (ii) of the Orientals, the Judeans have excelled in record-keeping (1.29). The Judean records have long been completed, whereas the Greek records are late and contradictory. Since "old is good" in the R o m a n world (Feldman 1993: 177-8), proof of antiquity amounts to high praise. Moreover, the Judean laws, unlike those of other nations, demon­ strably enable their advocates to hold death in contempt (1.43), which was a critical test of authenticity for ancient philosophy (MacMullen 1992: 6 3 - 6 9 ) . Josephus's proof of Judean antiquity (1.60-218) is also a vehicle for his positive claims about Judaism. For example, when he claims that Judeans have seldom been mentioned in the literature of other people because they are not a maritime nation, but have tradition­ ally devoted themselves to quiet agriculture (1.60-64), in addition to making a rational explanation, he is evoking the old R o m a n bucolic ideal. Greek lawgivers and philosophers have long admired and imitated aspects of Judean culture, he says: "Not only did the Greeks

COJVTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

21 1

know the Judeans, but they admired any of their number w h o m they happened to meet" (1.175). So the venerable Pythagoras incor­ porated Judean principles into his philosophy (1.162, 165); Aristotle was deeply impressed by, and learned from, a Judean w h o m he met (1.176-182); Hecataeus of Abdera wrote an entire book about the Judeans, in which he admired their resolve to observe their laws in the face of opposition, their imageless worship, their freedom from superstition, and the fertility of both their people and their land (1.191-204). Even in the most obviously defensive section of the work—his refutation of anti-Judean slanders (1.219-2.144)—Josephus assumes a position of superiority. First, he isolates the source of the slanders as Egypt, and then argues that Egyptian hatred of the Judeans stems from envy, since the Judeans formerly ruled that country ( 1 . 2 2 2 224). He sarcastically cites the difference between Egyptian and Judean religion, which is as great as the difference between irrational beasts and the real nature of God. H e continues: "These frivolous and utterly senseless specimens of humanity, accustomed from the first to erro­ neous ideas about the Gods [i.e., regarding animals as Gods], were incapable of imitating the solemnity of our theology, and the sight of our numerous admirers filled them with envy" (1.225). In effect, then, Josephus dismisses all of the slanders heard in R o m e in his day as derived from envious and spiteful Egyptians. Cohen's point that some of Josephus's assumptions would not have convinced a critical Greek reader (Cohen 1988: 4-9) only reinforces the conclusion that he expected a benevolent, already partially committed audience. After summarizing each Egyptian author's comments on the J u ­ deans, he ridicules their statements by pointing out internal contradic­ tions. H e also takes every opportunity to reiterate the shortcomings of Egyptian culture (2.139). But he reserves his sharpest barb for Apion, who had exercised some influence in R o m e under Claudius: this lying trouble-maker, Josephus claims, w h o had taken so much pleasure in deriding circumcision, was himself forced to be cir­ cumcised late in life for medical reasons and eventually died of ulcerated genitals. Muller notes that, in spite of its failings by modern standards (cf. Cohen 1988), this section reflects a literary-critical ability of the highest order for the first century (Muller 1969: 9); its cleverness must have been impressive. But in all of his witty refutation of Egyptian writers and their religion, Josephus assumes a benevolent readership already

212

STEVE MASON

predisposed to Judean culture and its ineffable deity. H e is attacking Judaism's detractors in a safe atmosphere.

C. The positive summary and appeal Josephus's assumptions about the audience and his own aims become clearest in the second half of volume 2. Here he gives his most forceful statement of Judaism's virtues: it is a way of life that is vastly superior to any other, and it welcomes converts. 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 8 6 : the Judean laws cultivate piety (evaepeia), friendship (Koivcovia) with one another, humanity ((pitaxv0pco7tia) toward the world, justice, steadfastness, and contempt of death (2.146). A n d j u d e a n s not only possess the most excellent laws; they also observe them most faithfully (2.150). What comes next is disarmingly frank. Josephus admits that every nation tries to make a case for the antiquity of its own laws, because everyone agrees that the oldest is best: the one who introduced the concept of ordered life is more admirable than those who merely imitated. But this premise only sets up his claim: "I maintain that our legislator is the most ancient of all legislators in the records of the whole world. Compared with him your Lycurguses and Solons and Zaleukos, the legislator of the Locrians, and all those who are so admired among the Greeks, seem to have been born just yesterday" (2.154). And again: "But the question, w h o was the most successful legislator, and w h o attained to the truest conception of God, may be answered by contrasting the laws themselves with those of others" (2.163). W e can only appreciate the boldness of this exercise when we recall that Josephus is writing for gentiles: he is rubbishing their own native traditions, and he expects to get away with it. H e expects, then, a benevolent readership. T h e principal points of this polemical contrast (cvyKpiciq) deserve careful attention from the perspective of our question: Is Josephus appealing to potential converts? In 2 . 1 6 4 - 1 7 1 we read that Moses rejected other forms of govern­ ment in favour of "theocracy", making G o d the only sovereign, and inculcated the noblest possible concept of God: as one, eternal, omni­ present, uncreated, ineffable. His views have been adopted by some eminent philosophers, admittedly, but they failed to make them into a cultural norm as Moses did. According to 2 . 1 7 2 - 1 8 3 , the comprehensiveness of Moses's legisla-

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

213

tion is without parallel. It is comprehensive in scope, in method (be­ cause for Judeans theory is inseparable from practice, whereas others have difficulty uniting theory and practice), and in constituency (for even women and children know and observe the laws). T h e perva­ sive legal literacy of the Judeans produces a unique harmony of outlook among them. T h e supreme value in Judean culture, overriding all others, is life in accord with the laws. In 2.184—189 Josephus asks rhetorically concerning the Judean Law: "What could one change in it? What more beautiful Law could have been found? . . . Could there be a more beautiful or just Law than one that makes G o d the Governor of all things, assigns the adminis­ tration of the greatest matters to the collective body of priests, and then entrusts the government of the other priests to the high priest?" The whole adminstration of the state, he says, "resembles some sacred ceremony." Again, the law is perfect and complete. The lengthy section 2 . 1 9 0 - 2 1 9 , which comes next, is a radiant summary of the Law's content, emphasizing its humaneness. It teaches a philosophical conception of the one true God, w h o is worshipped by the practice of virtue, not by sacrifice; the cult is practised at one temple only, and with great restraint and dignity, with prayer only for the common good, not for selfish ends; rites of passage (marriage, birth, and death) are all regulated so as to encourage virtue and humanity; filial piety ranks very highly; all social relationships are ordered to ensure justice; aliens are welcome to join the culture; merciful treatment of others, even declared enemies and animals, is required ofJudeans; penalties for transgression are severe—death in many cases (this is evidendy an attractive feature!); and the promise of a new and better life awaits those w h o are faithful to the Law. It is most interesting for our purpose that, in such a brief survey of the laws, which deals only with those elements that should attract the reader, Josephus should so conspicuously feature the treatment of aliens (2.209-210). "It is worth considering h o w the lawgiver gave attention to the fair treatment of foreigners. It is obvious that he took 5

5

Incidentally, it is a m i s t a k e t o see J o s e p h u s ' s n o t i c e t h a t t h e P h a r i s e e s a r e l e ­ n i e n t in p u n i s h m e n t [Ant. 13.294] a s s o m e k i n d o f c o m m e n d a t i o n . L e n i e n c y in a p p l y i n g laws w a s n o m o r e p o p u l a r in his d a y t h a n it is in o u r s . I n his view, t h e i n e x o r a b l e severity o f t h e L a w t o w a r d w r o n g d o e r s , a n d its serviceability a s a n i n ­ s t r u m e n t of p u b l i c o r d e r , w a s a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t of its g r e a t a p p e a l (cf. Ant. 1.14, 2 0 , 22, 2 3 ; CA 2 . 1 7 8 , 187, 194); h e a s s u m e d t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d a g r e e , b e c a u s e t h e y p e r c e i v e d t h e i r a g e as a t i m e of r a m p a n t lawlessness (see especially CA 2 . 2 7 6 - 2 7 8 ) .

214

STEVE MASON

the best possible precautions so that we should neither corrupt our own customs nor jealously keep them ((pGoveco) from those who elect to share them with us. For those who wish to come and live under the same laws with us he welcomes generously, holding that a com­ munity consists not in race alone but also in the selection of a way of life. Nevertheless, he did not desire that those who come by with only a minor interest should be involved in our special way of life." Several aspects of this passage merit comment. First, Josephus distinguishes between those who are merely interested in some part of Judean culture (casual visitors) and those who, like Helena and Izates, come and live under the laws. Arguably, he is trying here to influence the readers to move toward a full commitment. Second, there is a noteworthy coincidence of language between this passage and the preface to Antiquities: just as the high priest Eleazar did not wish to "jealously hoard" ((p0oveco) the Judean Law (Ant. 1.11) and so led the translation of the L X X for gentiles, so also here Josephus's Moses insisted that Judeans not jealously hoard their treasures. This coincidence of language underlines Josephus's consistency of purpose in the two works. Third, the language has a philosophical tinge: to choose Judaism is to choose (Tcpoaipeojiai) a way of life (piov)—not simply another national cult. It is therefore like conversion to philoso­ phy in A. D . Nock's analysis (Nock 1933). In 2 . 2 2 0 - 2 8 6 Josephus turns again to a polemical contrast of the Judean constitution with other systems. T h e Judean Law is superior to all others because it is more practicable and therefore more prac­ tised than Plato's laws; it inspires more commitment than Sparta's famous laws; Judeans have a famous willingness to die for their laws; and the Judean laws do not depict gods in human form, or with human passions, as do the traditions of other nations. 2 . 2 5 5 - 2 7 8 : Judeans agree with the very best Greek philosophers in both maintaining laws and refusing to associate with law-breakers. But they are much more open than others to adopted foreigners. Significantly, in view of the c o m m o n perception of Judean clannishness, Josephus concedes that "we do not wish to have fellowship with those w h o select another way of life" (|nr|8e Koivcoveiv eBeXoiiev xoiq KOCG exepocv ai)vr|0eiav piou £fjv rcpoaipoupivoi*;; 2.258). Nevertheless, he continues, "We, on the contrary, though we do not consider it worthwhile to pursue the customs of others, still we receive with pleasure [or: offer a warm reception to] those who decide to share ours with us (xoix; pxxexeiv xcov fijiiexepcov pou^oujievo'oq TISEGX; 8e%6jxe0a).

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

215

And this should be a clear sign, I think, of both our humanity and our magnanimity ((pitaxvGpGmiaq KGCI \ieyaXo\\fx>%ia<;)" (2.261). As in the preface to Antiquities, the willingness to share the benefits of Judean culture with others, as Josephus did following the example of the high priest Eleazar, is a sign of magnanimity (u£Ya^o\|n)%{cc). Judeans cannot keep secret the good things that they enjoy. As in Antiquities, too, Josephus simultaneously stresses the separateness of Judean cul­ ture and its openness to converts. These are really the positive face of the points criticized by Juvenal and Tacitus: the Judeans hold themselves separate from others, but they welcome converts, w h o then become part of a tightly-knit community. Josephus follows through one side of this pair (2.262-278): if the Judeans are charged with misanthropy because of their adherence to their own laws and rejection of foreign practices, then the legendary Athenians and Spartans should be so charged as well; every selfrespecting country fosters its own laws. O n the other hand, those other nations—including the nations of Josephus's readers—have long since given up this admirable practice, and have allowed their laws to fall into disuse. Indeed, they have become so slack in enforcement that fines are now accepted in cases of adultery, and "violation of the laws has with most nations become a fine art. N o t so with us" (2.276-277). W e see here again Josephus appealing to the law-andorder instincts of readers w h o see lawlessness all around them. In stark contrast with the failure of tradition among other peoples, the Judeans' laws are not only observed by themselves; they have for a long time been borrowed by others as well (2.279-286). In particular: The masses (nXr\(h\) have for a long time shown great eagerness for our piety (nokvq C^Xoq ... xr\<; tinexepocq evazfiziaq), and there is not one city, whether Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, which the custom of the seventh day, which we keep free of work, has not infiltrated, and where the fasts, and burning of lamps, and many of our prohibitions with respect to meats are not observed. They try further to imitate our harmony (ouovoicc) with one another, distribution of goods.. . . The most marvellous thing is that it is without the alluring bait of sensual pleasure, but only because of its intrinsic merit, that the Law has proven so effective; and, just as God permeates the universe, so the Law has found its way among all humanity. Each person who considers his own country and his own household will not disbelieve what I am saying. (2.282-284) If we leave aside the historical plausibility of this oft-cited passage and ask only about its force within the text, we see that Josephus has

216

STEVE MASON

pulled together a variety of particular conditions to serve his general point, which concerns the global influence (and therefore the vitality) of Judean culture. In good rhetorical fashion he employs all avail­ able means of persuasion, from alleged imitation of Judean harmony and charity (impossible to prove) to borrowing of the weekly rest-day custom (which may indeed have been growing in his day), to the specific adoption of Judean fasts, food laws, and sabbath rituals, which could be expected only of God-fearers and proselytes. Leaving aside his more far-fetched claims of imitation, we may still find here un­ derstandable cause for celebration on Josephus's part (cf. his earlier enthusiasm about Daniel) in the wide spectrum of attraction to Judean ways. These same phenomena are cause for complaint among Seneca, Juvenal, and Tacitus. Although he acknowledges many levels of imitation for rhetorical purposes here, his consistent position in An­ tiquities and Contra Apionem is to prefer full conversion. This rousing celebration of Judean culture forms the extended peroration of Contra Apionem. As in Antiquities, it has the effect of sub­ ordinating the defensive material to a positive appeal. A brief epi­ logue in the proper sense (2.287-296) reprises both the denunciative and persuasive positions of the tract. Josephus reiterates that Judean laws represent the very highest of human aspiration; they cannot be surpassed; and Judeans deserve credit for first introducing these beau­ tiful ideas to humanity. What response should all of this provoke in the friendly gentile reader-—an interested gentile? Should the reader respond: "Well, I'm glad to hear that you Judeans are not as guilty and depraved as I might have thought, on the basis of what I had heard from your detractors"? No! This is not primarily an exercise in forensic rhetoric, debating the truth about the past, but it hovers between epideictic (confirming shared ideals) and deliberative (requiring further action). T h e proper response to Josephus's appeal, I suggest, would be to explore Judean culture more intensively and to consider choosing its Piov as one's own, accepting Josephus's welcome to share its laws completely.

D . Genre of Contra Apionem W e move now to considerations of genre. Genre is a notoriously slippery concept, but in the case of Contra Apionem hardly anyone has

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

21 7

6

even attempted a classification. I shall argue that the most plausible generic affiliation has direct implications for our assessment of the work's aim. Like Antiquities, Contra Apionem portrays Judaism in philosophical terms. Judaism is a philosophical culture, whose founding philoso­ pher was Moses, and it was recognized as such by Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristode. That is why Judaism's G o d is somewhat like the G o d of the philosophers. Fulfilling the aspirations of Greek philosophers, Judaism also places a premium on the ascetic life. S o it is not like other national cults, with their temples and many sacrifices, visible images of God, and esoteric rituals. Whereas R o m a n writers tend to group Judaism with Egyptian, Syrian, and Chaldean superstitions, Josephus—along with other Greek-speaking Judeans such as Artapanus, Aristobulus, Philo, and the author of 4 Maccabees—presents it as a national philosophy. But this presentation serves, among other things, to facilitate the notion of "conversion," for conversion to a compre­ hensive way of life, a Pioq, was more appropriate to the international philosophical schools than to the ethnically-rooted Mediterranean cults (Nock 1933). This observation raises the question whether Contra Apionem should not be considered an example of the genre logos protreptikos, which had wide currency among the Hellenistic philosophi­ cal schools. 1. Definition of the logos protreptikos Marrou defines the logos protreptikos as "an inaugural lecture that tried to gain converts and attract young people to the philosophic life" (Marrou 206-207). Although scholars have found examples of the genre in part of Plato's Euthydemus, the chief exemplar is widely thought to have been Aristotle's Protreptikos (Diogenes Laertius 5.22.12), which is preserved only in fragments. According to Diogenes Laertius, phi­ losophers of all schools wrote protreptikoi—Aristippus (2.85.5), Plato (3.60.4), Theophrastus (5.49.18), Demetrius of Phaleron (5.81.13), Antisthenes (6.2.1), Monimus (6.83.14), Persaeus the student of Zeno

6

T h i s is a g u a r d e d w a y o f saying t h a t I d o n o t k n o w o f s u c h a classification a t all. M u l l e r , in his c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e w o r k (1877) d o e s n o t a t t e m p t t o define its g e n r e . T h a c k e r a y (1927) spoke o n l y o f o n e section a s " e n c o m i u m " — a t e r m w i d e l y a d o p t e d b y others. Bilde (1988) believes t h a t h e is t h e first e v e n t o p r o p o s e a c o m p l e t e o u d i n e o r " d i s p o s i t i o n . " H e p r o p o s e s t h a t t h e w h o l e w o r k is " m i s s i o n a r y l i t e r a t u r e " ; I essentially a g r e e , b u t w o n d e r w h e t h e r t h e g e n r e c a n b e m o r e precisely defined.

218

STEVE MASON

(7.36.15), Posidonius (7.91.8), Ariston of Chios (7.163.7), Cleanthes (7.175.9), and Epicurus (10.28.13)—but none of these texts has survived either. Cicero's fragmentary Hortensius is known largely for its role in persuading the young Augustine to take up philosophy [Confessions 3.4.7). A n extant Greek inscription mentions a competition for com­ posing logoi protreptikoi in the Athenian ephebate (Inscriptiones Graecae 2.2119). T h e evidence is thus enough to indicate that logoi protreptikoi constituted a recognized class of philosophical writing long before Josephus's time, even though our most complete examples come from his time and later. Unfortunately, the dearth of early examples is matched by a com­ plete absence of theoretical discussion in both the handbooks of rhe­ torical theory and the progymnasmata (manuals of rhetorical exercises). T o be sure, the rhetors discuss TOrcpoTpercTiKoqin the general sense of "persuasion," as a parallel technique to TO anoxpenziKoq, "dissua­ sion," but they do not discuss a kind of discourse or dialogue aimed at encouraging conversion to the philosophic life (Aune 1991: 279). Aune reasonably suggests that this deficiency results from the ancient stand-off between rhetors and philosophers: the rhetors simply did not recognize exhortations to philosophical conversion (Aune 280). Whatever its cause, the best we can now do is to rely on contempo­ rary scholars w h o have made inductive analyses of particular texts and the phenomenon as a whole. A seminal article is Mark D . Jordan's attempt to eke out a gen­ eric definition of philosophic protreptic from four examples (Jordan 1986): the Socratic "interludes" in Plato's Euthydemus, Aristotle's Protreptikos, (hypothetically reconstructed from fragments), Seneca's 90th episde (which sets out to correct Posidonius's lost Protreptikos) and Iamblichus's fourth-century Protreptikos—the second volume of his Collec­ tion of Pythagorean Teachings. Also helpful is the summary portion of David Aune's recent essay arguing that the Christian letter to the Romans is a logos protreptikos. Neither scholar has an interest in Contra Apionem, and neither identifies it as an example of the genre. Never­ theless, a survey of their observations concerning the genre incline one toward such an association. Jordan does not consider it possible to define the genre either by a characteristic structure or by a set of concrete aims, since repre­ sentatives of all schools wrote protreptikoi, in different forms and for somewhat different audiences, and they defined their aims (the high­ est good) differendy. H e settles for a "situational" definition, namely:

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

219

"each author confronts a hearer whose choice is the target of many other persuasions. T h e unity of philosophic protreptic . . . would seem to lie in the [sic] this 'exigence,' in the hearer's moment of choice before ways-of-life. . . . Protreptics are just those works that aim to bring about the firm choice of a lived way to wisdom . . . " (Jordan 1986: 330). O n the way to this generic definition, Jordan makes some particular observations that bear on the Contra Apionem. H e notes that the address to an individual, such as Aristotle's writing a Protreptikos for Themison the King of Cyprus, "gives the treatise that concrete urgency appropriate to protreptic" (321). A n d Jordan shows the importance of synkrisis (polemical contrast) in repudiating all claims to knowledge other than those being advocated by the author (321). Aune puts it this way: "The central function of logoi protreptikoi, within a philosophical context, was to encourage conversion. . . H o w ­ ever, logoi protreptikoi also characteristically included a strong element of dissuasion (apotrepeiri) or censure (elenchein) aimed at freeing the person from erroneous beliefs and practices" (280). After noting that the genre could take either discursive or dialogical forms, Aune quotes a fragment of Philo of Larissa (Stobaeus, Anthology 2.7.2) to the effect that all protreptic consists of two parts: demonstration of the value of philosophy and refutation of its detractors. At least in the abstract, then, Contra Apionem seems to correspond well to the thrust of the logos protreptikos. A brief consideration of protreptikoi from the century fol­ lowing Josephus's floruit will clarify the issue. 2. Examples of the logos protreptikos It is noteworthy that the largest number of surviving examples come from Christian apologists in the mid-second century and b e y o n d — that is, from the time at which Christianity consciously began to present itself to the world as a philosophical school. But if Christian authors seized upon this genre for attracting converts once they had begun to think of Christianity as a philosophy, then one must ask whether Judean writers who had long before conceived of Judaism as a philosophy did not also employ the form. Aune mentions several Hellenistic-Roman and Christian examples of the genre but does not discuss them in detail. W e shall consider three of the clearest cases: Lucian's Wisdom of Mgrinus, the so-called Epistle to Diognetus, and Clem­ ent of Alexandria's self-styled Exhortation (Protreptikos) to the Greeks. Although Lucian frames the Nigrinus as a dialogue at beginning and end, the bulk of it is given to the speech of character B (as

220

STEVE MASON

A. Harmon in the Loeb edition helpfully labels him). Character B has just returned from R o m e , where he met the Platonist philoso­ pher Nigrinus, otherwise unknown. T h e encounter has suddenly changed his life, transforming him into a happy and blissful (eu8a{jicDV T8 m i jLiaKapioq) man. Recall Josephus's promise of euSocijuovia to those w h o embrace the Judean laws. Here Character B says: "Don't you think it wonderful, by Zeus, that instead of being a slave, I am free; instead of being poor, I am truly wealthy; instead of being ignorant and blind, I have become sound?" (1). Character A then implores him not to jealously hoard (ou8e cpGoveiv) the source of such bliss from a friend; this is of course the same language that Josephus used to characterize his and Eleazar's motives (above). In response to this request, Character B recalls in detail the speech of Nigrinus that pierced his soul and led him to embrace philosophy (35-37). That speech is essentially a synkrisis, contrasting the disgusting worldly values so prevalent in R o m e with the philosophical life, free of luxury and sham, that prevails in Athens. T o choose (Ttpoaipeoum) the Athenian life (piov) is to choose a life of toil (14, 33), but one which alone brings happiness. Interestingly, Character B's praise of the philosophic life and repudiation of false living does not include an explicit appeal for the conversion of Character A; but we are not surprised w h e n Character A insists at the end that he must join his friend in a "change of heart" (enaG%ov ev xf\ \|/v%fj; 38). I submit that Josephus expected the same response from many hearers in the light of his presentation. Our second example of the protreptic genre is the Christian Epistle To Diognetus, which is variously dated to the mid- or late second century CE. This document has a structure that in many ways parallels Contra Apionem. For example, it opens with a prologue addressed to "most excellent ( K p d x i a x e ) Diognetus"—the same title used by Josephus of Epaphroditus—who is identified as a deeply interested outsider, mak­ ing active enquiries concerning Christian piety (euaepeioc) (1.1). After ridiculing pagan worship of hand-made gods in human form (2), as Josephus did, the Christian author disparages Judaism as an option. H e does this by rejecting the notion that G o d needs sacrifices (a point preempted by Josephus!) and by repeating c o m m o n objections to sabbath, circumcision, and dietary laws (3-4). Having so refuted false sources of knowledge, he moves to his positive portrayal of Christian piety (5-6), which again parallels Josephus at many points: Christians do not expose their infants, and

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

221

they are happy to suffer for their faith, holding death in contempt. Just as Josephus repeatedly cited Judean suffering as proof of this point, so the Christian author recalls Christians "flung to the wild beasts to make them deny their Lord, and yet remaining undefeated" (7, end). W e even find this remarkable parallel: whereas Josephus had suggested that as G o d permeates the cosmos, so the Law per­ meates all humanity, this author proposes that "As the soul is diffused through every part of the body, so are Christians through all cities of the world" (6.1). A n d where Josephus had credited Moses with constructing a constitution that time could not weaken, our Chris­ tian author appeals to the divine authentication of Christ's revelation. The Epistle ends with a direct appeal to Diognetus to believe and to emulate God's goodness (10.4), just as Josephus had claimed that Judaism teaches participation in God's virtue (Ant. 1.23). With Clement of Alexandria's Protreptikos we see the complete nativization of aggressive philosophical protreptic in Christian cir­ cles. Clement knew of Josephus's work (Stromata 1.21.147) but clearly relies on his own learning for the Exhortation. It is a much more ram­ bling, detailed, and anecdotal treatise than the Contra Apionem, and Clement feels little need to include much refutation of slander as Josephus had done. H e takes the offensive throughout. Still, we are in the same kind of literary world: he writes for benevolent gentile readers, who are willing to tolerate a sustained attack on their native traditions. After a proleptic synkrisis that contrasts popular Greek with Christian views (chap. 1), Clement writes four chapters (2-5) in which he savagely ridicules c o m m o n notions of the Gods and their activi­ ties, along with the gullibility and superstition of the masses. Included among his targets are also the most popular philosophical positions (chap. 5). Like Josephus, Clement allows that the better philosophers long ago taught the truth, but they derived their knowledge from the Hebrew scriptures (6.60p), which are the best source of (Christian) truth (8-9). Having made his theoretical case, in the final three chapters ( 1 0 12) Clement draws out the practical consequence that, knowing now the only true source of knowledge and happiness, his reader ought to convert to Christianity. This section is particularly interesting in social terms because, like Josephus with the story of Adiabene, Clement faces head-on the social obstacles to conversion. H e must show that the benefit is great enough to warrant the overthrow of the universal principle, "It is not proper to overthrow a way of life (eBoq) passed

222

STEVE MASON

down to us from our ancestors" (10.72p; cf. Contra Apionem 2.144). H e closes with repeated appeals to choose life over death. 3. Contra Apionem as a logos protreptikos These three examples are obviously different in setting, length, and internal structure (dialogue or discourse, autobiographical or abstract), as were also the examples considered by Jordan. But they suffice to confirm the vitality of philosophical protreptic through the century following Josephus. They also show that the genre was so well known that it could be used subversively, to draw people away from tradi­ tional philosophy and into Christian groups who now understood themselves as philosophies. But one might reasonably ask whether the widespread Christian employment of this genre, once Christian­ ity was conceived along philosophical lines, had not been anticipated by Judean authors w h o considered Judaism philosophy. It seems to me that no generic distinction can be drawn between these examples of philosophic protreptic and Josephus's Contra Apionem. All three of the sample texts presuppose a benevolent reader in search of happiness. All of them identify the highest, truest, noblest source of knowledge and way of life (Pioq). All of them polemically contrast this most desired life with available alternatives. (According to Philo of Larissa, refutation of slander was also a standard part of protreptic, though it is not as prominent in the sample texts as it is in the Contra Apionem.) A n d all of them conclude with either the explicit or implicit prospect of conversion to the way of life that has been advocated. If these other texts are admitted as logoi protreptikoi, then Josephus's Contra Apionem should be admitted as well. This generic affiliation would provide support for our assessment, based on context and content, that Josephus writes to encourage conversion.

Conclusion: Contra Apionem in context M y goal in this paper has been to understand better the aim of Josephus's Contra Apionem. M y proposal is that the work means to encourage potential converts to Judaism. First, I have attempted to re-read the work's content within its social and literary environment. Conversion to Judaism was a well-known phenomenon in first-century R o m e , and attraction to Judean culture continued after the great war. At the same time, the revolt rekindled anti-Judean sentiments

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

223

among the literati, and post-war conditions would necessarily have made conversion to this way of life more problematic. Josephus's first literary effort, the War, aimed at relieving anti-Judean sentiment in R o m e and elsewhere. During the reign of Domitian (81-96), which proved to be even more difficult for converts, Josephus composed a primer in Judean culture, to meet the needs of gentiles w h o were eager to learn it. H e closed the Antiquities, which presented Judean philosophy as the only sure path to e\)8aiuov{a, with a stirring con­ version story. This social and literary context provides important clues for un­ derstanding the Contra Apionem, which Josephus wrote during the reign of Nerva as a sequel to the Antiquities. It is addressed to the same interested gentiles. Josephus now takes the opportunity, while trium­ phantly refuting the Judeans' slanderers, to contrast Judean culture with all others, concluding that Judaism is the best possible system of laws under which one could live. H e closes with an extended enco­ mium on the laws that once again features the prospect of conver­ sion. T h e net effect of Josephus's remarks should be to make readers dissatisfied with anything but Judaism. T h e conclusion seems unavoid­ able that Josephus wished his gentile readers not to remain "casual visitors," as he says, but to come and live under Judean laws. Second, I have argued that Contra Apionem has the generic features of philosophic protreptic: it exhorts an interested outsider to find happiness in one option on the philosophical landscape through con­ version to that way of life (pioq). It uses polemical contrast (at>YKpioi<;) to remove other options from consideration, thus confirming the hearer's preliminary direction. It would be difficult to distinguish Contra Apionem generically from such an undisputed logos protreptikos as Clement's Exhortation to the Greeks. W e may now note Per Bilde's independent suggestion that Contra Apionem is "primarily a work of missionary literature" aimed at "those who were interested in Judaism" (Bilde 1988: 120). Although he has not developed his suggestion, as far as I know, the foregoing argu­ ment would support his claim. Here is a text that was undeniably written by a prominent Judean for gentiles; it was very probably read by gentiles; and it recommends conversion. Whether Judaism was a missionary religion or not, Josephus tried to be a Judean "missionary" in R o m e . I am aware that this reading of Contra Apionem sits uncomfortably with common views of both Judean proselytism and Josephus's own

224

STEVE MASON

character. T h e proselytism question we must leave with the observa­ tion that, no matter how strange it may seem that people would abandon their native traditions for a markedly separate regimen of life, it is difficult to explain the R o m a n evidence any other way. As for Josephus's character: it is basically unknown, since all we have are highly rhetorical writings from his hand. Whatever his real char­ acter may have been, his literary legacy moves in a single direction: from urgent refutation of post-war anti-Judaism (in War) to leisurely advocacy of Judean tradition (in Antiquities) to this forthright appeal in Contra Apionem. H e was famous among gentiles not as a traitor to his country but as the Judean historian (Suetonius, Vespasian 5.6.4; D i o , Roman History 65.1.4). Lacking any direct access to his mind we may nevertheless be sure of at least two things that he really did believe: (a) the G o d of the Judeans controlled and predicted all of world history, and (b) philosophically-minded pagans were now steadily moving toward the ethical monotheism that Judean culture had always taught. If he believed these two points alone, we may understand something of his eagerness to share the benefits of his tradition with outsiders.

Bibliography A m a r u , Betsy H a l p e r n 1980/1 L a n d T h e o l o g y in J o s e p h u s ' J e w i s h A n t i q u i t i e s . JQR 7 1 : 2 0 1 - 2 2 9 . Attridge, Harold W . 1976 The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. Missoula: Scholars. 1984 J o s e p h u s a n d H i s W o r k s . P p . 1 8 5 - 2 3 2 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, e d . M i c h a e l S t o n e . CRIJVT, section 2, v o l u m e 2. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s ; Assen: v a n G o r c u m . A u n e , D a v i d E. 1991 R o m a n s as a Logos Protreptikos. P p . 2 7 8 - 2 9 6 in The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, e d . K a r l P . D o n f r i e d . P e a b o d y M A : H e n d r i c k s o n . Bamberger, Bernard J. 1968 Proselytism in the Talmudic Period. N e w Y o r k : K T A V [ 1 9 3 9 ] . Begg, C h r i s t o p h e r T . 1993 Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (Ant. 8, 212-420): Rewriting the Bible L e u v e n : L e u v e n U P / P e e t e r s . Bilde, P e r 1988 Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome. J S P S 2; Sheffield: J S O T Press. B o r m a n n , Lukas, Kelly Del Tredici, a n d Angela Standhartinger 1994 Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays in Honor of Dieter Georgi. N o v T S u p 74. L e i d e n : E. J . Brill.

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

225

Braude, William G. 1940 Jewish Proselytizing in the First Five Centuries of the Common Era, the Age of the Tannaim and Amoraim. P r o v i d e n c e : B r o w n U n i v e r s i t y . Braun, M. 1934 Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Frankfurt: V . K l o s t e r mann. Cohen, Naomi G. 1 9 6 3 / 4 J o s e p h u s a n d S c r i p t u r e : I s j o s e p h u s ' T r e a t m e n t of t h e S c r i p t u r a l N a r r a ­ tive S i m i l a r T h r o u g h o u t t h e A n t i q u i t i e s I - X I ? JQR 5 4 : 3 1 1 - 3 3 2 . C o h e n , S. J . D . 1979 Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian. C S C T 8. L e i d e n : E. J . Brill. 1987 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. L E C 7. P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r . 1987a R e s p e c t for J u d a i s m b y G e n t i l e s A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s . HTR 8 0 : 4 0 9 430. 1988 H i s t o r y a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y in t h e Contra Apionem of J o s e p h u s . P p . 1-11 in History and Theory 2 7 : Essays in Jewish Historiography. 1989 C r o s s i n g t h e B o u n d a r y a n d B e c o m i n g a J e w . HTR 8 2 : 1 3 - 3 3 . 1993 "Those W h o Say T h e y Are J e w s a n d Are Not": H o w D o You K n o w a J e w in A n t i q u i t y W h e n Y o u See O n e ? P p . 1-45 in Diasporas in Antiquity, ed. S h a y e J . D . C o h e n a n d E r n e s t S. Frerichs. BJS 2 8 8 . A d a n t a : Scholars. Collins, J o h n J . 1985 A S y m b o l of O t h e r n e s s : C i r c u m c i s i o n a n d Salvation in t h e First C e n t u r y . P p . 1 6 3 - 1 8 6 in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, ed. J a c o b N e u s n e r a n d E r n e s t S. F r e r i c h s . C h i c o C A : Scholars. D a n i e l , J e r r y L. 1979 A n t i - S e m i t i s m in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n P e r i o d . JBL 9 8 : 4 5 - 6 5 . 1981 Apologetics in J o s e p h u s . D i s s e r t a t i o n , R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y . F e l d m a n , Louis H . 1984 Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980). N e w York: Walter de Gruyter. 1987 A Selective C r i t i c a l B i b l i o g r a p h y of J o s e p h u s . P p . 3 3 0 - 4 4 8 in Josephus, The Bible, and History, ed. L o u i s H . F e l d m a n a n d G o h e i H a t a . D e t r o i t : W a y n e State U P . 1990 U s e , A u t h o r i t y a n d Exegesis of M i k r a in t h e W r i t i n g s of J o s e p h u s . P p . 4 5 5 - 5 1 8 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, e d . M . J . M u l d e r a n d H . Sysling. M i n n e a p o l i s : F o r t r e s s . 1993 Jew and Gentile in Antiquity: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian Princeton: Princeton U P . 1993a J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of B a l a a m . P p . 4 8 - 8 3 in The Stadia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Volume V, 1993, e d . D a v i d R u n i a . BJS 2 8 7 . Atlanta: Scholars. F e l d m a n , Louis H . a n d G o h e i H a t a , e d s . 1987 Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. D e t r o i t : W a y n e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1988 Josephus, the Bible, and History. D e t r o i t : W a y n e S t a t e Press. Franxman, Thomas W. 1979 Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus. R o m e : Biblical Insti­ tute Press. Gafni, Isaiah 1989 J o s e p h u s a n d I M a c c a b e e s . P p . 1 1 6 - 1 3 1 in F e l d m a n a n d H a t a , JBH. Gager, J o h n G. 1983 The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. O x f o r d : O x f o r d U P .

226 1987

STEVE MASON

J u d a i s m as S e e n b y O u t s i d e r s . P p . 9 9 - 1 1 6 in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, e d . R o b e r t A. K r a f t a n d G e o r g e W . E. N i c k e l s b u r g . A t l a n t a : Scholars; Philadelphia: Fortress. Georgi, Dieter 1986 The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress [ 1 9 6 4 ] . Goodman, Martin 1992 J e w i s h Proselytizing in t h e First C e n t u r y . P p . 5 3 - 7 8 in The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, e d . J u d i t h Lieu, J o h n N o r t h , a n d Tessa Rajak. N e w York: Routledge. 1994 Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon. Hata, Gohei 1987 T h e S t o r y of M o s e s I n t e r p r e t e d W i t h i n t h e C o n t e x t of A n t i - S e m i t i s m . P p . 1 8 0 - 1 9 7 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. L. H . F e l d m a n a n d G. H a t a . Detroit: W a y n e State U P . Hölscher, Gustav 1916 J o s e p h u s . PWRE 18: 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 . Jordan, Mark D. 1986 A n c i e n t P h i l o s o p h i c P r o t r e p t i c a n d t h e P r o b l e m of Persuasive G e n r e s . Rhetorica 4 : 3 0 9 - 3 3 3 . K e n n e d y , George A. 1994 A New History of Classical Rhetoric. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1984 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. C h a p e l Hill: U n i v e r ­ sity of N o r t h C a r o l i n a . Kraabel, T h o m a s A. 1994 I m m i g r a n t s , Exiles, E x p a t r i a t e s , a n d M i s s i o n a r i e s . P p . 7 1 - 8 8 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays in Honor of Dieter Georgi, e d . L u k a s B o r m a n n , Kelly D e l T r e d i c i , a n d A n g e l a S t a n d h a r t i n g e r N o v T S u p 7 4 . L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. K r a e m e r , R o s s S. 1989 O n t h e M e a n i n g of t h e T e r m " J e w " in G r e c o - R o m a n Inscriptions. HTR 82: 3 5 - 5 3 . Krieger, Klaus-Stefan 1994 Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus. T A N Z 9. T ü b i n g e n : A. F r a n c k e . L a m p e , Peter. 1989 Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. W U N T , s e c o n d series 18. T ü b i n g e n : J . C . B . M o h r (Paul Siebeck). Laqueur, Richard 1970 Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus. D a r m s t a d t : Wissenschaftliche B u c h ­ gesellschaft [ 1 9 2 0 ] . Leon, Harry J. 1960 The Jews of Ancient Rome. P h i l a d e l p h i a : J P S A . Linder, A m n o n 1987 The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. D e t r o i t : W a y n e State U P ; J e r u s a l e m : Israel A c a d e m y of Sciences a n d H u m a n i t i e s . MacMullen, Ramsay 1992 Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. L o n d o n a n d N e w York: Routledge. M a s o n , Steve 1988 J o s e p h u s o n t h e P h a r i s e e s R e c o n s i d e r e d : A C r i t i q u e of S m i t h / N e u s n e r . Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 17: 4 4 5 - 4 6 9 . 1991 Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. S P B 3 9 ; L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. 1991a R e v i e w of Scot M c K n i g h t , A Light Among the Gentiles. Ioudaios Review 1.001.

CONTRA APIONEM IN SOCIAL AND LITERARY CONTEXT

1992 1992a 1993

227

Josephus and the New Testament. P e a b o d y M A : H e n d r i c k s o n . R e v i e w of S e t h S c h w a r t z , Josephus andjudaean Politics. Ioudaios Review 2 . 0 0 8 . G r e c o - R o m a n , J e w i s h , a n d C h r i s t i a n Philosophies. P p . 1-28 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, n e w series v o l u m e 4: Religious and Theological Studies, ed. J a c o b Neusner. 1993a P a u l , Classical A n t i - J u d a i s m , a n d R o m a n s . P p . 1 4 1 - 1 8 0 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, n e w series v o l u m e 4: Religious and Theological Studies, e d . J a c o b Neusner. 1994 J o s e p h u s , D a n i e l , a n d t h e F l a v i a n H o u s e . P p . 1 6 1 - 1 9 1 in Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, e d . F a u s t o P a r e n t e a n d J o s e p h Sievers. S P B 4 1 . L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. 1996 Assessing J o s e p h u s . F o r t h c o m i n g in BAR. M c E l e n e y , Neil J . 1974 C o n v e r s i o n , C i r c u m c i s i o n a n d t h e L a w . NTS 2 0 : 3 2 8 - 3 3 3 . M c K n i g h t , Scot 1991 A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. M i n n e a p o l i s : F o r t r e s s . Moehring, Horst 1957 Novelistic E l e m e n t s in t h e W r i t i n g s of Flavius J o s e p h u s . D i s s e r t a t i o n : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o . Müller, J . G. 1969 Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion: Text und Erklärung. H i l d e s h e i m : Georg O l m s [1877]. Neusner, J a c o b 1956 A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1. L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. 1964 T h e C o n v e r s i o n of A d i a b e n e to J u d a i s m . JBL 8 3 : 6 0 - 6 6 . Nock, Arthur D a r b y 1933 Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augus­ tine of Hippo. O x f o r d : O x f o r d U P . Pelletier, A n d r é 1962 Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la lettre dAristée. P a r i s : Klincksieck. 1989 J o s e p h u s , t h e L e t t e r of Aristeas, a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t . P p . 9 7 - 1 1 5 in F e l d m a n a n d H a t a JBH (above). S a n d e r s , E. P. 1992 Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE. P h i l a d e l p h i a : T P I . Schalk, A b r a h a m 1975 E v i d e n c e of a n A r a m a i c S o u r c e in J o s e p h u s ' " A n t i q u i t i e s of t h e J e w s " . Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4: 1 6 3 - 1 8 8 . Schiffman, L a w r e n c e H . 1987 T h e C o n v e r s i o n of t h e R o y a l H o u s e of A d i a b e n e in J o s e p h u s a n d R a b ­ binic S o u r c e s . P p . 2 9 3 - 3 1 2 in F e l d m a n a n d H a t a , JJC (above). Schürer, Emil 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised a n d e d i t e d b y G e z a V e r m e s , F e r g u s M i l l a r , a n d M a r t i n G o o d m a n . 3 vols. E d i n ­ burgh: T . & T . Clark [1890]. Schwartz, Seth 1990 Josephus andjudaean Politics. C S C T 18. L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. Segal, A l a n F . 1990 Paul the Apostle: The Apostalate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. N e w H a v e n : Yale U P . Sevenster, J . N . 1975 The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World. N o v T S u p 4 1 . L e i d e n : E. J . Brill. Simon, Marcel 1986 Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman

228

STEVE MASON

Empire (135-425). T r a n s . H . M c K e a t i n g . O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press [ 1 9 6 4 ] . Smallwood, M a r y E. 1959 T h e Legislation of H a d r i a n a n d A n t o n i n u s Pius A g a i n s t C i r c u m c i ­ sion. Latomus (18): 3 3 7 - 3 3 8 . 1981 The Jews Under Roman Ruh: from Pompey to Diocletian. A Study in Political Relations. L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. Smith, Morton 1956 P a l e s t i n i a n J u d a i s m in t h e First C e n t u r y . P p . 6 7 - 8 1 in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, e d . M . D a v i s . N e w Y o r k : J T S A . Sterling, G r e g o r y E. 1992 Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. N o v T S u p 4 4 ; L e i d e n : E . J . Brill. Stern, M e n a h e m 1976-1984 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. J e r u s a l e m : Israel A c a d e m y of Sciences. 1987 T h e J e w s in G r e e k a n d L a t i n L i t e r a t u r e . P p . 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 5 9 in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions. CRINT, section 1, v o l u m e 2. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r t r e s s ; Assen: v a n G o r c u m . Taylor, Miriam 1992 T h e J e w s in t h e W r i t i n g s of t h e E a r l y C h u r c h F a t h e r s (150-312): M e n of S t r a w o r F o r m i d a b l e Rivals? D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of O x f o r d . T h a c k e r a y , H e n r y St. J . 1967 Josephus: The Man and the Historian N e w Y o r k : K t a v [ 1 9 2 8 ] . van der Horst, P. W . 1991 Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. K a m p e n : K o k P h a r o s . Weiss, H.-F. 1979 P h a r i s ä i s m u s u n d Hellenismus: z u m D a r s t e l l u n g des J u d e n t u m s im G e ­ s c h i c h t s w e r k d e s j ü d i s c h e n H i s t o r i k e r s Flavius J o s e p h u s . Orientalistische Literarzeitung 74: 4 2 1 - 4 3 3 . Whittaker, Molly 1984 Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U P . Will, E d o u a r d a n d C l a u d e O r r i e u x 1992 "Prosélytisme Juif?" Histoire d'une erreur. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

J O S E P H U S , CONTRA APIONEM A N D H I S T O R I C A L INQUIRY IN T H E R O M A N R H E T O R I C A L S C H O O L S ROBERT G.

HALL

Hampden-Sydney College

Historians admit that Josephus wrote history after the rhetorical model current in his age and that Josephus probably studied in R o m e . Juxtaposing these two commonly held ideas yields an interesting ques­ tion: can we discover methods of historical inquiry Josephus might have learned from his R o m a n teachers? Since the writings of Cicero and Quintilian as well as the anonymous treatise, Ad Herennium, offer an entrance into R o m a n rhetorical education in the first century CE, we can answer this question in the affirmative. I will infer a method of historical inquiry from these R o m a n rhetoricians, then analyze Josephus' disquisition on Manetho to argue that Josephus relies on their method for constructing his arguments against Jewish detrac­ tors in Contra Apionem. Josephus propounds rival views of historiography as part of his argument in Contra Apionem. O f the Greeks Josephus writes: 1

2

A n y o n e m a y easily l e a r n from their o w n writings t h a t e a c h writes n o t k n o w i n g a n y t h i n g firmly (PePatcoq) b u t as e a c h o n e conjectures (zxK&Lpi: to infer from analogy) c o n c e r n i n g events [Contra Apior\em 1.15, m y o w n translation). T h e y [Greek historians' writings] a p p e a r to be w o r d s improvised freely b y the i m a g i n a t i o n (eaxeSioco-uivoax;) a c c o r d i n g to t h e p u r p o s e of t h e writer (1.45, m y o w n translation).

1

H . W . A t t r i d g e , The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus ( H a r v a r d D i s s e r t a t i o n s in R e l i g i o n 7; M i s s o u l a , M T : S c h o l a r s , 1976) 3 9 - 5 7 ; P . Villalba i V a r n e d a , The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus ( A L G H J 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986) 6 9 , 8 9 - 9 2 ; K . - S . K r i e g e r , Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus ( T A N Z ; T ü b i n g e n : F r a n k e , 1994) 5, 1 0 - 1 3 ; D . L . B a l c h , " T w o A p o l o g e t i c E n c o m i a : D i o n y s i u s o n R o m e a n d J o s e p h u s o n t h e J e w s , " JSJ 13 (1982) 1 0 2 - 1 2 2 ; S. J . D . C o h e n , " H i s t o r y a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y in t h e Contra Apionem of J o s e p h u s , " Essays in Jewish Historiography. History and Theory. Beiheft 27 (Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y , 1988) 1 - 1 1 . T . R a j a k , Josephus: the Historian and his Society ( L o n d o n : D u c k w o r t h , 1983) 4 6 - 6 4 . 2

230

ROBERT HALL

O f other nations: Of the care bestowed by the Egyptians and Babylonians on their chronicles from the remotest ages, and how the charge and exposition of those was entrusted, in the former country to the priests, in the latter to the Chaldeans . . . I think I need say nothing, as the facts are universally admitted (1.28). 3

O f the Jews: Seeing that with us it is not open to everybody to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written; seeing that on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowl­ edge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their own time just as they occurred. . . (1.37). Since Josephus praises the Jewish method of historical inquiry and disparages Greek historians, a modern reader might expect Josephus to employ the Jewish method in Contra Apionem. H e does not. Nowhere in Contra Apionem does Josephus claim to write as a prophet. Josephus had undergirded his Jewish War with a claim to divine knowledge but abandoned this prophetic stance in his later work, probably because the readers he sought found a prophetic claim incredible. Josephus does not defend his own method for Contra Apionem when he argues in favor of Jewish prophetic historiography, nor does he reject the Greek historical method. Instead he defends the classical Jewish historians and strives to raise doubts concerning the motives of those Greeks w h o disparage them. In Contra Apionem Josephus opposes historians and rhetoricians w h o are trained in Greek histo­ riography and w h o write for an audience that prefers their style of historical argumentation. Josephus naturally adopts the Greek method of argumentation which already controls the debate. Since Apion, Josephus' ostensible opponent, taught rhetoric in Rome, and since Josephus probably studied the art of Greek eloquence under R o m a n teachers, the debate captured for us in Contra Apionem will likely proceed according to principles recognized in these schools. 4

5

6

3

U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e n o t e d all t r a n s l a t i o n s of Contra Apionem a r e from J o s e p h u s , The Life; Contra Apionem t r a n s , b y H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d , 1993). R . G . H a l l , Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography ( J S P S S 6; Sheffield: J S O T , 1991) 2 2 - 3 0 . See C o h e n , "History a n d Historiography," 4 - 5 . R a j a k , Josephus, 4 6 - 6 4 . 4

5

6

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

231

The writings of Cicero and Quintilian along with the treatise called Ad Herennium document the flowering of the R o m a n rhetorical schools in the first centuries B C E and C E . Quintilian, Josephus' contempo­ rary, not only offers an encyclopedic course in rhetorical practice but also prescribes the ideal course of study for the R o m a n citizen. Rhetorical authors such as these provide an entrance into the pedagogy of the intellectual climate Josephus sought to master.

Historical method in the Roman rhetoricians The R o m a n rhetoricians do not prescribe h o w to research and write history; they describe h o w to research and write speeches. W e can infer an historical method from their work (I) because they equate historical and rhetorical training, (II) because they equate historical and rhetorical method, and (III) because they equate truth in history not with knowledge but with plausible narration, one of the most thoroughly discussed tasks of the orator.

I. Rhetoricians equated historical and rhetorical training. Rhetoricians trained their students to fit them for public life; they trained them to make history. Since participants in historical events would also record them, the training of an orator readied students to write history as well as to influence events. Because he equated his­ torical and rhetorical training, Quintilian advised retired orators to teach rhetoric, consult at law, or write history (Quintilian 12.11.4) and required his youngest students to begin oratorical training by writ­ ing historical narrative (2.4.4-8). Cicero blamed the undistinguished 7

8

9

7

I h a v e e x p l o r e d a n c i e n t history a n d r h e t o r i c m o r e fully in " A n c i e n t H i s t o r i c a l M e t h o d a n d t h e T r a i n i n g of a n O r a t o r , " f o r t h c o m i n g i n S. E . P o r t e r a n d T . H . O l b r i c h t , e d s . Rhetoric and Scripture: The London Conference 1995 (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1997). Participants claim t o m a k e t h e best writers of history: T h u c y d i d e s 1.1, 2 2 ; Polybius 4 . 2 . 2 - 4 ; J o s e p h u s , Jewish War 1.1-4; cf. Contra Apionem 1.38; L u c i a n satirizes p a r t i c i ­ p a n t s w h o h a s t e n t o c h r o n i c l e t h e P a r t h i a n c a m p a i g n s (How to Write History 16, 29). P r o b a b l y t h e distinction b e t w e e n critical a n d r h e t o r i c a l history in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d (see for i n s t a n c e A t t r i d g e , Interpretation of Biblical History, 4 5 - 5 8 ) h a s b e e n o v e r ­ d r a w n . M a s o n (Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. A Composition-critical Study [ L e i d e n : Brill, 1991] 3 7 6 - 3 7 7 ) rightly asserts t h a t Polybius, t h e e x e m p l a r o f " c r i t i c a l " history is rhetorical. I n a n y case, Polybius is n e v e r so r h e t o r i c a l a s w h e n h e a t t a c k s t h e r h e ­ torical p r e o c c u p a t i o n s of h i s t o r i a n s h e criticizes (e.g. 16.17.9). 8

9

232

ROBERT HALL

level of Latin history writing on a lack of rhetorical education (De Oratore 2.51, 54), attributed the flowering of Greek history to rhetori­ cal training (2.55-57), recalled that Isocrates, founder of the most respected of Greek rhetorical schools, appointed two of his students, Theopompus and Ephorus, to write history (2.57), and subsumed the writing of history under the duties of an orator (2.62, 64). Roman teachers of rhetoric assumed that rhetorical training prepared their students to write history. If rhetorical training qualified students to write history, then we can hope to infer an historical method from the rhetorical handbooks.

II. Rhetoricians equated historical and rhetorical method. Surprisingly, this identification appears most clearly where rhetori­ cians differentiate history from oratory, for the rhetoricians consistently equate historical and rhetorical narrative technique and distinguish history and oratory only by goal or style. Quintilian requires orators to read the historians for improving skill in narrative but warns that they must remember to pursue a different goal: historians narrate to benefit posterity and to win glory; orators narrate to prove their case (Quintilian 10.1.31). Because Quintilian identifies the methods of history and oratory and because he finds the goal of history simpler and more straightforward, he teaches the youngest of his budding orators to write historical narrative (2.4.4-8) and later to confirm or refute the likelihood of "the records of history" (2.4.18). In Quintilian, goal divides historical from oratorical narrative: historical narrative aims at the truth (2.4.3); oratorical narrative must color, suppress, or even deny the truth in order to support a case (4.2.89-90). Cicero similarly identifies the methods of rhetoric and history. Cicero catalogues the tasks of historians: they must arrange their material temporally and portray the places in which actions occur; they must characterize the agents and describe and evaluate their plans and actions and the causes which motivate them (De Oratore 2.63). Al­ though Cicero does not allude to his youthful work, the tasks of the historian nearly reproduce his earlier recommendations for ensuring 10

10

T r a n s l a t i o n s of Q u i n t i l i a n from H . E . Butler, The Institutio Oratorio, of Quintilian ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d , 1980) four v o l u m e s . S i n c e Q u i n t i l i a n calls these exercises b y G r e e k n a m e s (àvacKevri, KaxaaKevri), r h e t o r i c i a n s m u s t h a v e t r a d i t i o n ­ ally e m p l o y e d t h e m in t h e r h e t o r i c a l schools.

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

233

11

plausible narration in a speech (De Inventione 1.29). Like Quintilian, Cicero distinguishes history and oratory by goal and style rather than method: historians must tell the truth without partiality or malice (Cicero, De Oratore 2.62) and must avoid the rough vigor of the law court in favor of an easy, flowing style (2.64; cf. Quintilian 10.1. 32-33). Hence for R o m a n rhetoricians, methods of inquiry for orators and historians are identical, but their goals differ. Oratorical inquiry pro­ duces artistic narration; the pressures of their case m a y legitimately require orators to narrate fiction. Historical inquiry produces artistic narration, but historians must never narrate fiction. T h e skills, tech­ niques, and methods of research which produce artistic narration are common to both. Understanding the art of narrative will enable us to grasp the historical method presupposed by the R o m a n rhetori­ cians; understanding that truth for which the historian should aim will enable us to understand how an historian should use that method.

III. The rhetoricians equate truth in history not with knowledge about the past but with faithful, plausible narration of what one thinks happened. The rhetoricians assume that history is the art of plausible narra­ tion directed toward the truth. T o understand w h y rhetorical and historical narrative are identical, w e must understand the truth about the past towards which historians aim. Stasis theory reveals the na­ ture of this truth. In stasis theory rhetoricians attempted to define stances a defense could take against an accusation in a court of law. Determining the stasis of the case enabled orators to seek the kinds of arguments most appropriate to it. A n orator w h o argued that he did not kill another man employed the stasis of conjecture. If he argued that the killing was not murder but self-defense he employed the stasis of definition. If he argued that it was right to kill him to preserve the state, he employed the stasis of quality and so on. Historians would occasionally face all the stases: definition when

11

" T h e n a r r a t i v e will b e plausible if it s e e m s t o e m b o d y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h a r e a c c u s t o m e d t o a p p e a r in r e a l life; if t h e p r o p e r qualities o f c h a r a c t e r a r e m a i n ­ t a i n e d , if r e a s o n s for t h e i r a c t i o n s a r e p l a i n , if it c a n b e s h o w n t h a t t h e t i m e w a s o p p o r t u n e , t h e s p a c e sufficient a n d t h e p l a c e suitable for t h e e v e n t s a b o u t t o b e n a r r a t e d ; if t h e story fits i n w i t h t h e n a t u r e a n d t h e beliefs o f t h e a u d i e n c e . " S e e also Ad Herennium 1.9.16).

234

ROBERT HALL

deciding whether robbing a temple was plunder or sacrilege; quality when arguing the justice of actions technically illegal and so on. Since historians ask primarily whether an act occurred, historical method essentially concerns the stasis of conjecture. Understanding this stasis will show how R o m a n teachers understood the task of trying to grasp the past and will reveal what they meant by requiring historians to seek "the truth." Quintilian defines conjecture as asking "whether a thing is" (3.6.44), Cicero as "a question of what is true or what has occurred, or what will happen, or what can happen at all" (Topica 11.50). Cicero's definition implies the uncertainty inherent in the conjectural stasis: Cicero thinks of what is true or what has occurred as no more certain than what will happen. By conjecture one aims at discovering the truth (Quintilian 3.6.30) in doubtful cases where actuality exceeds the human capacity for certainty: "For a thing must either be certain or uncertain: if it is uncertain the basis will be conjectural; if certain it will be some one of the other bases" (Quintilian 3.6.34). Because they are inherently uncertain, conjectural causes frequently require buttressing by accumulation: 12

Of the same kind is that other accumulation which is very useful in conjectural causes, when the implications, which are petty and weak because expressed separately, are collected in one place and so seem to make the subject evident and not dubious (Ad Herennium 4.53). 13

T h e historical method which the R o m a n rhetoricians assume aims at truth but not certainty. T h e y would agree with Aristotle that in­ ferences about the past concern things which may be other than they are (Rhetoric 1.2.13-17) and with Plutarch that historians aim at credibility rather than proof: The historian, on the other hand, if he is to be fair declares as true what he knows to be the case and, when facts are not clear, says that the more creditable appears to be the true account rather than the less creditable. Many omit the less creditable version altogether (Plutarch, Moralia: Malice of Herodotus 8.55.5).

12

14

T r a n s l a t i o n s of C i c e r o ' s Topica a n d De Inventione from De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorium, Topica. T r a n s H . W . H u b b e l l ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d , 1949). T r a n s l a t i o n s of Ad Herennium from [Cicero] Ad C. Herennium T r a n s . H . C a p l a n ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d , 1981). T r a n s l a t e d b y L. P e a r s o n , Plutarch's Moralia XI ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d , 1965) 15. 13

14

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

235

The historical method taught by the R o m a n teachers of rhetoric, though aiming at truth rather than deception, strove not for what was demonstrably true but for what was plausible. W h e n requiring historians to speak the truth, the rhetoricians did not think of histo­ rians writing what they could demonstrate; they thought of histori­ ans writing what might plausibly have happened, with no intention to deceive. Teachers of rhetoric, then, had to teach students how to discover what was plausible rather than "what really happened;" the method of historical inquiry they taught aimed at discovering in the data available the most effective ways to create a credible, effective, satisfying account of what the historian thought probably happened. The art of narrative as taught by the rhetoricians trained students to discover and exploit ways of creating a convincing story. T h e art of narrative contains that historical method presupposed by the R o m a n rhetoricians.

Methods of historical inquiry in the Roman rhetoricians W e can deduce the historical method of the R o m a n rhetoricians by studying their recommendations for the art of narrative. Under the art of narrative the rhetoricians taught both how to discover ideas which historians could incorporate to make their accounts credible and how to tell a tale convincingly. W e will discuss strategies for telling a convincing tale under (I) plausible narration and strategies for discovering convincing ideas under (II) topics and (III) testimony. Thus we can infer from the art of narrative methods for writing history and methods for historical research. /. Plausible narration. Because narrative can readily acquire and re­ tain audience attention, rhetoricians carefully train their students in the art of narration or story telling. Rhetoricians teach students to think of narrative as argument: Quintilian defines narration as proof in continuous form (4.2.54-55). Although unlike the ideal historian the ideal orator must occasionally construct narratives to support fab­ ricated events, rhetoricians emphasize that their students must labor to make their narratives as plausible, as obvious and self-evident, when narrating truths as when narrating fiction (Quintilian. 4.2.34; Ad Herennium 1.9.16). Historians, trained by the R o m a n rhetorical schools, would conceal in their narratives arguments establishing the credibility

236

ROBERT HALL

of the story they tell. Plausible narratives allege motives for all the actions on which the interpretation turns and develop the characters of the actors so that the reader expects them to act as they do (Quintilian 4.2.52; Ad Herennium 1.9.16; Rhetorica adAlexandram 30.1438b. 1-5). Plausibility should control selection of events to por­ tray: authors should say nothing but what is likely to win belief (Quintilian 4.2.35; Ad Herennium 1.9.14; Cicero, De Inventione 1.28) and should omit improbable events even if they are true (Rhetorica ad Alexandram 30.1438b. 1-5). Clarity demands presentation in the order of actual or probable sequence (Ad Herennium 1.9.15; Rhetorica ad Alexandram 31.1438b. 1 9 - 2 3 ; Cicero, De Inventione 1.29), yet Quintilian argues for presenting events in whatever order most cogently ad­ vances the argument (Quintilian 4.2.83-84). Hence narratives can follow either the actual or an artificial order of events (Quintilian 2.13.5). Narrations persuade as much by charm as by content: 15

The statement of facts should be characterized by passages which will charm and excite admiration or expectation, and marked by unexpected turns, conversations between persons and appeals to every kind of emotion (Quintilian 4.2.107; cf. Cicero, De Inventione 1.19.27). Historians trained by the R o m a n rhetoricians in the art of narrative would seek to discover plausible arguments to form and support their interpretations of historical events. T h e y would invent characters and motives for the agents in the events they narrate; they would omit anything extraneous or implausible; they would order events chrono­ logically or not as most contributed to plausible narrative; they would carefully develop suspense, construct conversations, insert intriguing turns of plot and play on the emotions of the reader in order to increase the plausibility of their accounts. Since the goal of history was plausible narration of what probably happened, historical method aimed not at discovering "what really happened" but at discovering hints for developing their agents' characters and motivations as well as turns of plot and suspense from which to build a plausible narrative. 77. Topics. Rhetoricians developed the topics to guide orators in discovering plausible arguments, details and inferences that could make a narrative convincing. T h e topics were places to look for means to enhance plausibility, places to seek hints for developing character,

15

" F o r n o o n e c a n b e c o n v i n c e d t h a t a d e e d h a s b e e n d o n e unless s o m e r e a s o n w a s g i v e n w h y it w a s d o n e " ( C i c e r o , De Inventione 2.19).

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

237

motive, and plot. T h e topics defined a series of questions to ask of data; since the questions asked determined the answers given, the topics defined a method for historical research. Cicero divides con­ jectural topics into three classes: inference (coniectura) "[1] from the cause of the action, [2] from the character of the person involved, and [3] from the nature of the act" (De Inventione 2.16). 1. T o write a convincing narrative, one must explain why events occur. Under causes of actions, Cicero recognizes two types: impulse, the careless state of mind that engenders action under the influence of love, anger, grief, or the like, and premeditation in which the mind carefully initiates action to acquire some advantage (De Inventione 2 . 1 7 18). Hence for Cicero, cause equals motivation. Historians must inter­ rogate the data at their disposal to discover what motives of im­ pulse or premeditation most plausibly account for the actions in question (2.19-20). T o craft a plausible historical account, then, the historian must elicit credible motives from the events or stories un­ der investigation, then amplify these motives to make them plausible for the reader. 2. T o write a convincing narrative, one must depict believable characters. Under character, Cicero (De Inventione 2.31) lists attributes which the researcher should consider to characterize agents plausi­ bly: name, city, ancestors, kin, age, temperament, physical condition; how, with whom, and by w h o m one is reared and educated; with whom one lives, plan or purpose in life, manner of home life; for­ tune in life such as wealth, fame, success and their opposites and conditions c o m m o n to them; habits (abiding constitutions of mind and body) and interests (objects of study); accomplishments, actions, speeches. Historians should work through such a list of attributes when studying the agents acting in their narratives, for these attributes can suggest suspiciones, clues, inklings, or suspicions, from which one can construct believable characters w h o can plausibly act on the motives alleged for them (2.32; cf. Ad Herennium 2.3.5, Quintilian 5.10.23-31). 3. T o write a convincing narrative, one must depict actions cred­ ibly. Under act Cicero considers how to discover details which will make the actions plausible: What coheres with the action before during and after (De Inventione 2.39)? What place, time, occasion, and facilities produced the act (2.40)? What do similar events usually entail (2.41)? 16

16

See Q u i n t i l i a n ' s discussion of m o t i v a t i o n ( 5 . 1 0 . 3 2 - 3 6 ) .

238

ROBERT HALL

What consequences do such actions regularly produce; how do gov­ ernments or persons respond to them (2.42)? Combining suspicions taken from these acts with the characters of the persons involved will multiply hints for constructing plot when crafting a plausible narra­ tive (2.38). Suppose that an historian knew that Aeneas had called a halt to build a fire. Under cause the historian could infer as motives the desire for heat and light, under Aeneas' character prudent concern for those he led under act that those building the fire had first gath­ ered wood. T h e topics lead the historian to find raw material for constructing plausible narrative. R o m a n rhetoricians taught their students to study emotions and motives, attributes of character and features of actions, then to pon­ der the characters, deeds, and motives of the agents in the events they study (De Inventione 2.45): 17

When the mind studies so attentively every part of the whole affair, then topics mentioned above which are stored up will come forth of their own accord; and then sometimes from one, sometimes from a combination of topics, definite arguments will be produced, part of which will be classed as probable and part as irrefutable (2.46). Their method would as readily discover arguments to ground historical narrative as to ground the narration of a speech in a law court. III. Testimony. Historians must also learn to evaluate testimony, for they must frequendy rely on witnesses for the data they investigate by the topics. T h e rhetoricians assume that oral and especially written witnesses seek to color if not falsify their accounts. Tools for evalu­ ation of witnesses echo those topics developed above: Quintilian exhorts students to evaluate witnesses for character, motive, and consistency; the author of Ad Herennium asks also whether the witness had occa­ sion to know what he or she claims (2.10). Research into the character of a witness will determine methods of interrogation and indicate the credibility of their testimony. Ac­ quaintance with a witness's character teaches whether angering, flattering, intimidating or fooling them will induce them to speak more than they wish (Quintilian 5.7.26) or whether they will give evidence best if treated courteously (5.7.27). Research into character

17

S e e Q u i n t i l i a n 5 . 1 0 . 3 7 - 5 2 o n t i m e , p l a c e , etc. a n d C i c e r o , De Inventione 1 . 3 4 5 2 for a fuller discussion of topics.

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

239

will also rate the credibility of witnesses' testimony; a witness w h o has acted disgracefully or w h o belongs to a lower class will not carry conviction as readily as an upright witness or one w h o commands a higher social location (5.7.26, 30). O n e must prepare the hearer to believe witnesses one chooses to rely on and to disbelieve those one wishes to discredit (5.7.8), strengthening testimony from those of low degree by claiming forthright citation of those w h o were present and undercutting those of high degree by insinuating that their influence carries more weight than their knowledge (5.7.23). Understanding the character of a witness is chiefly valuable for grasping the witness's motivation (5.7.23). What motivates witnesses to speak establishes the credibility of their testimony. Eager witnesses motivated to speak by malice or love are less credible than reluctant witnesses who speak what they wish to conceal (5.7.16-18, 24). Careful investigation to uncover motives for false testimony will disclose witnesses w h o intend to deceive (5.7.13), and understanding witnesses' intentions should guide questions asked of them (5.7.16-20). Quintilian expects historians to establish as care­ fully the characters and motives for their sources as for the agents who enact historical events, for historians will correctly credit and interrogate witnesses only after conjecturing motives for the testimony they give (5.7.13). Researchers should examine witnesses to uncover contradiction: Fortune is sometimes so kind that a witness gives an answer involving some inconsistency, while at times (and this is a more frequent occur­ rence) one witness contradicts another. But acute examination method­ ologically conducted will generally reach the same result which is so often reached by chance (Quintilian 5.7.23). Hence researchers should try to trip witnesses into inconsistency (5.7.11) or into speaking what they wish to deny lest they invalidate their testimony by inconsistency (5.7.17-18, 19, 27). Character, motive, consistency, and opportunity for knowledge enable the researcher to evaluate written as well as oral testimony (Quintilian 5.7.1-2; Cicero, De Inventione 2.116-117). Other topics apply only to documentary evidence: Is a document authentic, or can one discount the witnesses who vouch for it (Quintilian 5.7.2)? Written evidence always carries a presumption of bias since authors speak only what they intend:

240

ROBERT HALL F u r t h e r , t h e r e is always a certain tacit prejudice against d o c u m e n t a r y evidence, since n o o n e c a n b e forced to give such evidence save of his o w n free will, w h e r e b y h e shows t h a t h e h a r b o u r s unfriendly feelings t o w a r d t h e p e r s o n against w h o m h e b e a r s witness (Quintilian 5.7.2).

Quintilian requires students to evaluate oral or written testimony by assessing witnesses' character, motives, consistency, and sources for knowledge. Presumably he would expect historians to do the same. Because rhetoricians assumed that historians aimed at plausible narration rather than at historical demonstration, modern researchers may fail to appreciate the rigor expected of their ancient counter­ parts. Quintilian requires his students to exercise skepticism about everything (12.8.11). T h e y must examine every document (12.8.12) and interrogate even their own clients without mercy to trip them into saying what they mean to withhold (12.8.9). They must never rely on the surmises of others. Rather they must rigorously investi­ gate characters, motives, and actions under the topics for artificial proof and diligently inquire into what motivates the witnesses who ground inartificial proof (12.8.13-14). As Quintilian urges advocates to study their cases exhaustively so would he urge historians to pursue rigorous research. 18

Rhetorical inquiry in Contra Apionem In Contra Apionem Josephus employs the historical method inherent in his R o m a n rhetorical training to assess the credibility of several his­ torians w h o wrote on the Jews. H e calls attentions to his rhetorical stance by pretending to call witnesses as if he were an orator defend­ ing a client in a lawsuit {Contra Apionem 1.69-70, 74; cf. 1.220, 288). As will appear below, he finds inconsistencies among these witnesses, develops their characters, and attributes motives to them in order to increase or decrease their credibility. H e declares their narratives implausible by finding incommensurate the characters, motives, and actions they allege. Thus Josephus structures his own arguments by the canons of R o m a n rhetorical historiography and employs these canons to criticize the historical productions of his opponents. His opponents' accounts, since they fail to maintain harmony of charac­ ter, motive, and action, are implausible. 1 8

Artificial p r o o f refers to d e m o n s t r a t i o n s d e p e n d i n g o n the ingenuity of the speaker o r w r i t e r ; inartificial p r o o f d e n o t e s d e m o n s t r a t i o n s n o t crafted b y t h e speaker.

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

241

Josephus quotes Manetho, an Egyptian historian w h o writes in Greek, both to support Jewish antiquity (Contra Apionem 1.73-105) and to illustrate the lies about the Jews Josephus wishes to refute (Contra Apionem 1.228-287). Because Josephus accepts some of M a n etho's data and rejects others, the disquisitions o n Manetho well illustrate Josephus' method of historical inquiry. Testimony: preparing readers to credit or discredit witnesses. As the R o m a n rhetoricians recommended (Quintilian 5.7.8), Josephus carefully pre­ pares the reader to accept or reject the witnesses he intends to call. H e prepares readers to suspect Greek historians in general by attrib­ uting to them unworthy motives; they write to display literary ability (Contra Apionem 1.24); they undertake whatever promised to give them a greater reputation than the others (1.25); they do not even aim at consistency (1.26). Since motive characterizes agents, Josephus has impugned his witnesses by character, motive, and consistency, as Quintilian instructs (Quintilian 5 . 1 . 1 0 - 1 1 , 13, 23). Josephus prepares the reader to receive Greek speaking historians as witnesses a little later. Remembering that witnesses are most credible when they testify to what they wish to deny (Quintilian 5 . 7 . 1 6 - 1 8 , 24), Josephus carefully points out that he calls as witnesses to the antiquity of the Jews Egyptians and Phoenicians w h o are the Jews' bitter enemies (Contra Apionem 1.70). Since their enmity would lead them to slant their accounts against the Jews rather than in their favor, their testimony to the antiquity of the Jews is especially cred­ ible. By this means Josephus undergirds the testimony of Manetho who is an Egyptian. Josephus further supports Manetho's witness by assuring readers that Manetho drew from the sacred Egyptian books which Josephus has already taken pains to extol (1.28). Josephus points out that Manetho has reason to know what he is talking about (cf. Ad Herennium 2.10). Josephus prepares readers to discredit historians with w h o m he 19

19

C u r i o u s l y , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t allege this m o t i v e w h e n discussing t h e C h a l d e a n s , t h o u g h h e m i g h t h a v e s u p p o r t e d t h a t m o t i v e b y t h e i r d e s t r u c t i o n of J e r u s a l e m a n d t h e t e m p l e u n d e r N e b u c h a d n e z z e r . I n s t e a d h e claims k i n s h i p w i t h t h e C h a l d e a n s , a claim w i t h t w o a d v a n t a g e s : J o s e p h u s c a n u s e it t o d e n y k i n s h i p w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n s , i m p o r t a n t since h e will p l a y o n t h e p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t E g y p t i a n s w h e n d i s c o u n t i n g A p i o n ' s e v i d e n c e ( 2 . 2 8 - 3 1 ) ; c l a i m i n g C h a l d e a n s as e n e m i e s b e c a u s e t h e y d e s t r o y e d J e r u s a l e m w o u l d also identify his R o m a n r e a d e r s as e n e m i e s , a m o v e w h i c h w o u l d certainly fail t o w i n t h e a u d i e n c e h e a d d r e s s e s . I n a n y case, since t h e e v i d e n c e J o s e p h u s uses from t h e C h a l d e a n s is largely ancillary t o t h a t from t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d P h o e n i c i a n s , t h e i r e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a s rigorous s u p p o r t .

242

ROBERT HALL

differs. Since Josephus will find it necessary to disagree with Manetho later (1.228-287), at the end of his first disquisition on Manetho, Josephus prepares readers to discredit Manetho when they next meet him: Josephus alleges that Manetho derives the rest of his Jewish stories not from the Egyptian records but from hearsay (1.105, cf. 229, 287). Josephus exposes the desire for fame which motivates those w h o attack illustrious nations and cities (1.220-222) and reveals the envy and hatred which move Egyptians and their sycophants to vilify the Jews (1.224-226). Calling attention to Egyptian hatred for the Jews w h o had once dominated Egypt, to their envy of the Jews' con­ tinued prosperity after leaving Egypt, to their animosity toward the Jews whose modes of worship conflict with their own, and to their envy of the admiration which Hebrew theology excites throughout the world (1.224-226) adequately prepares the reader to discredit Manetho's account to follow. Josephus prejudices readers further by characterizing Egyptian witnesses as foolish and small-minded be­ cause, blinded by their impulses of hatred and envy, they contradict themselves (1.226-227). As R o m a n rhetoricians recommend, Josephus prepares readers to credit or discredit the witnesses he will call. H e lauds or impugns the sources for knowledge available to his witnesses and attributes motives of hatred or envy to strengthen the credibility of witnesses' testimony in favor of the Jews or to discredit their testimony when it calumniates them. 3

Plausible narration: Josephus critique of historical narrative. In his second discussion of Manetho, Josephus critiques the origin of those accounts which calumniate the Jews. Since his case rests on how well he dis­ credits Manetho's claim that the Jews originated from ill and maimed Egyptians, he employs a full range of rhetorical tools for constructing historical arguments. As the rhetoricians suggest, Josephus attacks Manetho's credibility. Manetho's account is implausible because it is internally inconsistent and because it attributes incredible complexes of motives, characters, and actions to the agents in the narratives. Manetho's story is inconsistent with itself. Josephus rejects Manetho's account of Moses and the lepers because it contradicts his earlier account which Josephus accepts. Despite Manetho's clear attempt to distinguish two excursions from Egypt to Jerusalem, Josephus treats them as rival accounts and alleges that Egyptian enmity and envy led Manetho to include a spurious account of the exodus to dis-

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

243

honor the Jews (1.230-232). It matters little that this contradiction will not bear close inspection, for Josephus uses it not to demon­ strate his view of the past as might a modern historian but to cast doubt on the plausibility of Manetho's account. For Josephus, whose view of history precludes two excursions of Jews from Egypt and who has already identified the exodus with the expulsion of the Hycsos, the two accounts must contradict one another. Manetho's account attributes incredible complexes of motives, characters, and actions to the agents in the narrative. As the rheto­ ricians recommend, Josephus has studied Manetho's account, inspecting actions, characters, and motives, has discovered hints (suspiciones) for inventing incompatibilities among them, and has composed arguments to bring these incompatibilities of actions, characters, and motives home to the reader. Josephus has arranged these implausibilities into an accumulation of fifteen or so arguments (1.254—286; cf. Ad Herennium 4.53), relying not on any one argument but on the effect of repeated hammer blows. Josephus attacks the motive which starts the story. Manetho attrib­ uted the expulsion of the lepers from Egypt to the king's desire to see the gods. Josephus shows that action and motive do not suit: Since the king wanted to see the gods as one of his precursors had, he would have followed his predecessor's tried and tested procedure rather than seeking a novel method (1.254-255). Josephus cannot resist poking fun at the motive as well; since the Egyptians wor­ shipped animals, they saw their gods all the time; the king's desire is nonsense. Josephus attacks the character Manetho gives the mantic seer w h o advises the king: If really wise, why did he not foresee that the king would never see the gods? W h y would he claim that the presence of people with deformities inhibited the king's vision? Since Josephus could count on his readers to agree that "Impiety excites their wrath, not physical deformities" (Contra Apionem. 256; cf. Quintilian 5 . 1 0 . 1 2 14; Cicero, De Inventione 1.48), he can claim that the seer's character for wisdom does not cohere with his actions. Josephus later finds further incompatibilities in the character, motivation, and action of the seer: If a seer, why did he not foresee his own death and oppose the king's desire to see the gods? His character does not suit his action. Why should the seer kill himself to avoid the political disasters 20

2 0

T h a c k e r a y , 2 5 6 n. c.

244

ROBERT HALL

he foresaw for Egypt? What could he fear more than his own death? Manetho's account is implausible: it alleges no motive adequate to explain the seer's actions (1.258-259). Josephus alleges an impropriety of action: N o one can gather 80,000 sick, scattered people in a day. Never mind that the account Josephus gives us mentions nothing about one day (1.257; cf. 234). Josephus avows that the king's action in gathering and conscripting the ill and maimed does not fit the motive attributed to him: Manetho attributes to the king the motive of obeying the seer's advice so that he would see the gods, but the king forces the deformed persons to labor rather than expelling them as the seer required. Josephus argues that another motive better explains Pharaoh's action: his quarries must have suffered a shortage of labor (1.257). T h e motives, characters, and actions alleged for the rebellion of Aueris against the king do not suit either. Pharaoh removes the maimed from hard labor in the quarries and gives them a city of their own. H o w does the king's generosity motivate those who benefit to rebel (1.267)? If they were still angry with the king for his former deeds, why should they direct their animosity toward their own re­ lations instead of the king alone (1.268)? W h y systematically profane the gods and laws under which they grew up (1.269)? The character of those w h o rebel does not suit their rebellious actions; Manetho alleges no motive capable of supporting the actions he records: Manetho's account is incredible. Hence, in his initial salvo, Josephus shows that Manetho has con­ structed an incredible account. Josephus follows standard rhetorical methods to show that the motives, characters, and actions which Manetho uses to construct his narrative are contradictory; hence Manetho's account is implausible. T o this point Josephus lists arguments in series. T o vary presenta­ tion for the reader he then interrupts the list with a summary of Manetho's account (1.260-266). Josephus elects to continue his cri­ tique of plausible narration by offering a more fully developed argu­ ment according to the "five-fold" scheme advocated by Cicero (De Inventione 1.67) and the author of Ad Herennium (2.18.28) and presup­ posed by Quintilian (5.14.14-23). Josephus' argument analyzes well by the scheme in Ad Herennium: 21

21

Q u i n t i l i a n retains t h e actuality of this five p a r t a r g u m e n t even t h o u g h , influenced b y G r e e k discussions of t h e e p i c h e i r e m e , h e prefers a less strict three-fold s c h e m e .

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY Proposition

Reason P r o o f of

reason Embellishment

Resume

245

Again, how absurd to suppose that, while none of their own relations and friends joined in the revolt and shared the perils of war, these pariahs sent to Jerusalem and obtained recruits from that quarter! What alliance, what connexion existed previously between them? On the contrary, these people were enemies, and their customs utterly opposed to their own. Yet, says Manetho, they lent a ready ear to the promise that they should occupy Egypt, as if they were not inti­ mately acquainted with the country from which they had been forcibly expelled! Had they been in straitened cir­ cumstances or unfortunate, they might, conceivably, have undertaken the risk; but inhabiting, as they did, an opu­ lent city and enjoying the fruits of an extensive country, superior to Egypt, what inducement could there be to hazard their lives in support of their former foes, those maimed cripples, whom not one even of their own people would tolerate (Contra Apionem 1.271-274)?

This elaborate argument finds incongruities of character, motive, and action for the Jerusalemite allies of Aueris. T h e argument eliminates advantages or impulses which might have moved the Jerusalemites to attack Egypt: nothing attractive would have moved them to unite themselves to these defiled former enemies who were rejected even by their own people; no want or force drove them from Jerusalem; Egypt could not attract them, for their own land far excelled Egypt. This argument adheres so slavishly to the form that it looks schoolbookish. Josephus does add another reason outside the form to elimi­ nate the motive of easy gain: they could not have foreseen that Pharaoh would flee with his powerful army to Ethiopia (1.274). A series of incompatibilities of character, motive, and action surrounds Amenophis' reentry into Egypt and pursuit of the enemy back to Syria: H o w can Egypt be conquered so easily? T h e enemy from Jerusalem had a large army and thirteen years to prepare for Amenophis' return. With every motive and opportunity for fortifying Egypt's southern border against Amenophis, how could they have failed to do so? The easy assumption that Amenophis could pursue his enemies across the desert to Syria asserts an impossible action:

H e considers t h e m a j o r p r e m i s e a n d its r e a s o n as o n e p a r t i n s t e a d of t w o likewise t h e m i n o r p r e m i s e a n d its r e a s o n ( 5 . 1 4 . 5 - 9 ) .

and

246

ROBERT HALL

everyone knows with what difficulty a disciplined army crosses a desert; but participants in a rout would die on the way (1.277)! T h e actions of Moses as Manetho portrays him do not fit his character as revealed in the law he hands down, for how would a leper or maimed person have legislated laws to his own disadvantage? H o w would his first people have approved laws that systematically oppressed them? And Josephus attributes a motive to Manetho in return: T h e Egyptians so respected Moses and his fame that they wanted to claim him as one of their own (1.279-286). In the disquisition on Manetho, Josephus closely considers the headings for plausible narration to follow the methods for argument advocated by his Roman teachers. H e not only impugns the characters, motivation, consistency, and possibility for knowledge of his witnesses, he also discredits Manetho's account by alleging improprieties of motive, character, and action. Topics: Josephus discovering inconsistencies. Josephus has structured his research on lists of topics similar to those preserved in the writings of the R o m a n rhetoricians. Comparing the lists of topics to the data in Manetho yields exactly the kinds of arguments Josephus uses. Josephus has inspected every character and action for hints as to motive, under the head of premeditation, asking what advantage the characters sought by their actions; under the heading impulse, ask­ ing what passion induced them to act. What advantage did the king seek by forcing the defiled persons to work in quarries? Clearly he did not seek to see the gods, for he ignored the seer's command to expel the lepers; rather he sought labor to run the quarries (1.257). What advantage did those from Jerusalem seek by entering what promised to be an expensive, long distance war with Egypt? There could by none; their land surpassed Egypt's and produced plenty for them (1.271-274). Would impulse have led them? H o w could they pursue such an imprudent course from love of a people so defiled that their own nation cast them off (1.271-274)? Every question Josephus insinuates against motivation in the account stems from similar applications of the topics of impulse and premeditation. O n e would think the brief account from Manetho offered little to develop character, but an application of the topics yields just the sort of material Josephus utilizes: Inquiring (ioxopeco?) under the topic, 22

2 2

F o r t h e s e topics a n d references in t h e r h e t o r i c i a n s , see p a g e s 2 3 6 - 3 7 a b o v e .

CONTRA APIONEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

247

"name," Josephus discovers that Manetho has added "Amenophis" to the list of kings (1.230) and that "Osarsiph" can hardly stand as an Egyptian equivalent for "Moses" (1.286). Under the topic, "city," that a people possessed of such beautiful cities as Jerusalem or Aueris could hardly find it expedient to invade or rebel (1.273, 267). Under "ancestors," Josephus concludes that the king would have imitated his ancestor's successful technique for seeing gods (1.255), that those who dwelled in Aueris would hardly have made war on their parents (1.268), or that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have known from their progenitors that the land of Jerusalem surpassed that of Egypt (272). The topic, "physical condition," revealed that sick and maimed human beings could never have crossed the desert or survived the quarries (1.278). Under "upbringing and education," Josephus found that the maimed Egyptians would not have wantonly profaned their gods or transgressed their laws (1.269). The topic, "accomplishments," disclosed that Moses, whose legislation counters the interests of lepers and deformed, could never have legislated for such people or counted himself among them (1.280-285), or that an accredited seer could never act so unwisely (1.256, 259). Under "success" Josephus discovered that successful conquerors fortify borders against enemies (1.277), under "plan or purpose" that the king who wishes to see the gods must purpose differently from one who seeks labor (1.257), and under "interests," concerns an individual had carefully pursued, that one who had studied to be a seer might have acted more wisely (1.256, 259). 23

In investigating topics of action, Josephus would have asked what cohered with each action, what facilities made actions possible, what would similar events entail? Under "what coheres with each action" Josephus would have discovered that the seer's suicide did not go with his foreseeing the conquest of Egypt (1.256, 2 5 8 - 2 5 9 ) , that the gift of a city to the maimed did not cohere with their rebellion (1.267), that a king desiring to see the gods, as a former pharaoh had, would have sought relief in the prior pharaoh's method (1.255). Under "facil­ ity" Josephus discovered that the invaders had ample time and re­ sources for fortifying the borders of Egypt against Amenophis (1.277), that pursuing enemies across the desert was impossible (1.277), that the inhabitants of Jerusalem had little opportunity to become ac­ quainted with those who lived in Aueris (1.272). Under "what similar 2 3

F o r these topics a n d references in t h e r h e t o r i c i a n s , see p a g e 2 3 7 a b o v e .

248

ROBERT HALL

events entail" Josephus would have learned that conquerors would defend their territory (1.277), that kings secure good will by bestow­ ing cities (1.267), that those who seek allies do so among friends rather than strangers (1.272). Since applying the lists of topics from the R o m a n rhetoricians to the story from Manetho yields the arguments that Josephus adduces, we conclude that Josephus has probably followed a standard list of rhetorical topics. Josephus chose the topics of motive, character, and action for defining the viewpoints from which he investigated the data. H e was firmly wedded to the historical method propounded by his R o m a n teachers. Indeed, I think he has followed the method so closely that his work has that very school-boyish character he denies (1.53). 24

Conclusion Josephus defends his views of the history of Israel not by seeking to demonstrate how he thinks the Jews originated but by impugning the plausibility of his opponents' accounts. In doing so, Josephus adopts the understanding of historical method taught by his Roman teach­ ers. With them, he assumes that the goal of history writing is not demonstration but a plausible narrative of what might have happened. T o defeat his opponents, he does not need to demonstrate his own view; he needs only to discredit the accounts of his opponents; he must only show that their accounts are not plausible. Doing so will leave in place undisputed his own plausible account already written: the Antiquities of the Jews. Although Josephus claims to base Antiquities on the prophetic his­ tory of the Jews with its claim to knowledge, perhaps certainty, about the past, he does not allow that certainty to dominate the Antiquities or his defense of it in Contra Apionem. Josephus has wedded himself to plausibility, not certainty. Josephus' intended audience, rooted as they are in an historical method that produces plausibility rather than certainty, might find the prophetic claim incredible. Hence, the

2 4

S i n c e t h e topics r e p r e s e n t a series of q u e s t i o n s to ask of d a t a , w e s h o u l d n o t b e s u r p r i s e d w h e n different q u e s t i o n s t u r n u p t h e s a m e d a t a . T h e topics offer different v i e w p o i n t s from w h i c h t o scrutinize d a t a . Since t h e d a t a r e m a i n t h e s a m e , different v i e w p o i n t s often reveal t h e s a m e sights.

COWRA APIOJVEM AND HISTORICAL INQUIRY

249

Antiquities stands or falls not o n its demonstration of past actions but on the aptness of attributed motives and characters, o n the internal and external consistency of its narrative, and on its ability to incor­ porate and build on the prejudices and presuppositions of its read­ ers. T h e passages permitting the reader to doubt the miraculous reveal the extent to which the criterion of plausibility dominates the Antiquities. W e should not infer that Josephus doubts that Moses parted the sea (Ant. 2.348) but only that his interest centers not in showing what happened but in creating an account credible for the readers he expects. In the interest of plausibility, Josephus must refrain from pushing his readers further than their presuppositions permit them to g o . Josephus, then, makes his case in Contra Apionem by applying an historical method taught in the R o m a n rhetorical schools. H e fol­ lows the theory of topics when researching data to make his case. H e follows recommendations for crediting and discrediting witnesses. H e follows the theory of narration when inventing credible charac­ ters and motives to construct plausible historical narratives. His reli­ ance on this method suggests that he pursued a standard R o m a n rhetorical education. 25

26

2 5

S e e t h e f r e q u e n t c o n c l u s i o n o f F e l d m a n t h a t J o s e p h u s clarifies m o t i v a t i o n for biblical c h a r a c t e r s in t h e Antiquities; see L. H . F e l d m a n , ' J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of J o s e p h , " RB (1992) 5 2 7 o r " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t o f E l i s h a , " Nov.T. 3 6 (1994) 1 - 2 8 . H e n c e J o s e p h u s a d o p t s G r e e k r h e t o r i c a l h i s t o r i o g r a p h y for t h e p u r p o s e o f c o n v i n c i n g his h e a r e r s b u t p r o b a b l y n e v e r a b a n d o n s his J e w i s h p r e d i l e c t i o n for c e r t a i n t y g r o u n d e d in r e v e l a t i o n . S e e C o h e n , " H i s t o r y a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y , " 1 1 ; T . R a j a k , " J o s e p h u s a n d t h e ' A r c h a e o l o g y ' o f t h e J e w s , " JJS 3 3 (1982) 4 6 5 - 4 7 7 . Similarly Basser's finding t h a t J o s e p h u s r o o t s his d r a m a t i z a t i o n a n d p s y c h o l o g i z i n g (studies in c h a r a c t e r a n d motive) in r e c o g n i z e d rules of J e w i s h exegesis c o h e r e s well w i t h t h e m i x t u r e of J e w i s h a n d G r e e k h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l t e c h n i q u e s I find in J o s e p h u s . S e e H . Basser, " J o s e p h u s a s E x e g e t e , " JAOS 107.1 (1987) 2 1 - 3 0 . 2 6

R E A D I N G B E T W E E N T H E LINES: A P P R E C I A T I O N O F J U D A I S M I N ANTI-JEWISH W R I T E R S C I T E D I N COJVTRA APIONEM 1

Louis H. FELDMAN

Yeshiva University

1. Introduction Although no one will dispute that the intentions of anti-Jewish writers such as Lysimachus, Chaeremon, and Apion were bitterly hostile, this does not mean that their invective was necessarily received in that light by all their ancient readers, especially those who had been exposed to positive appreciations of the Jews by writers of such note as Aristode, Theophrastus, Hecataeus of Abdera, Megasthenes, Clearchus of Soli, Alexander Polyhistor, Varro, Pseudo-Longinus, and those w h o realized that such invective, almost by definition, was full of exaggeration. Moreover, to make their charges more credible, anti-Jewish writers, we may well assume, had to give the appearance of impartiality. An example of such display of impartiality may be found in Josephus' contemporary Tacitus, w h o proclaims at the very beginning of his Annals (1.1) that he will address his subject sine ira et studio, "without bitterness or partiality." Even though he then proceeds to pour out his wrath against emperor after emperor, he is careful, from time to time, to give the appearance of impartiality by citing positive achieve­ ments in order to preserve his credibility. Indeed, even in his noto­ riously bitter attack upon the Jews in his Histories, Book 5, there are a number of pro-Jewish sentiments, particularly in his account of the origin of the Jewish people. As to Josephus' essay, Contra Apionem, 2

3

1

T h i s essay is a c o n d e n s e d a n d revised version of m y article, " P r o J e w i s h Intimations in A n t i - J e w i s h R e m a r k s C i t e d in J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem" JQR 78 (1987) 1 8 7 - 2 5 1 . F o r t h e c i t a t i o n s see M . S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1 ( J e r u s a l e m : Israel A c a d e m y of Sciences a n d H u m a n i t i e s , 1974) 6 - 1 7 , 2 0 - 5 2 , 1 5 7 6 4 , 2 0 7 - 1 2 , 3 6 1 - 6 5 ; a n d see t h e discussion in m y Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian ( P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n University, 1993) 177-83, 201-7, 233-42. S e e m y " P r o - J e w i s h I n t i m a t i o n s in T a c i t u s ' A c c o u n t of J e w i s h O r i g i n s , " REJ 150 (1991) 3 3 1 - 6 0 . 2

3

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

251

one intriguing question, almost totally neglected by commentators, is why so few manuscripts of this work (eight) are extant in Greek, seven of which go back to a single imperfect copy of the C o d e x Laurentianus 69.22, and why, indeed, a sizable portion of the text (2.52-113) is missing in all of them, so that we must depend for this portion of the text upon the Latin translation made at the instance of Cassiodorus, whereas the Church chose to preserve all the rest of Josephus' works and in numerous manuscripts (55 of the Jewish War, 31 of the first ten books of the Antiquities, and 4 4 of Books 1 1 - 2 0 of the Antiquities and the Life? Concomitantly, we may ask why the Church, which is to a considerable degree responsible for the pres­ ervation of classical writers both in the East and in the West, per­ mitted the writings of the six leading anti-Jewish writers cited by Josephus—Manetho, Lysimachus, Chaeremon, Apion, Poseidonius, and Apollonius M o l o n — t o be lost when they were themselves engaged in such bitter attacks upon the Jews. O n e answer, of course, might be that the Church hesitated to attack Judaism, since it claimed to be Verus Israel. Another answer might be that some of the same charges made against the Jews were also made against the Christians. Still another answer, which this essay will explore, is that the Church realized that reading between the lines one would find in these antiJewish writers some significant positive portrayals of the Jews, even though the authors themselves had no such intention. In antiquity the character of a nation was largely known from the qualities of its founder or lawgiver, whether Lycurgus for the Spartans or Aeneas for the R o m a n s . T h e very fact that Moses is mentioned at all is a concession, because, as we hear from Philo, the envious Greeks did not even deign to speak of Moses (De Vita Mosis 1.1.2). Moreover, that Manetho, whose work is clearly authoritative, since, according to Josephus (CA 1.73), it is a translation from the Egyptian sacred tablets, identifies Moses as an Egyptian priest clearly gives him stature (CA 1.250), inasmuch as Egyptian priests, as we see from Herodotus, were said to possess exact knowledge (2.119). That this is a positive element may be seen from the fact that Moses is similarly identified by the historian Artapanus, w h o is certainly pro-Jewish and 5

6

4

See H . S c h r e c k e n b e r g , Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 8 - 5 1 . See m y " O r i g e n ' s Contra Celsum a n d J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem: T h e Issue of J e w ­ ish O r i g i n s , " VC 4 4 (1990) 1 0 5 - 3 5 . See m y Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, 2 3 3 - 8 7 . 5

6

252

LOUIS FELDMAN

w h o is, indeed, usually identified as a J e w (ap. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9.27.4.6). T h e fact that Moses is indentified by Manetho as one of the priests of Heliopolis (CA 1.238) adds considerable stature to his person, especially since, as we learn from Strabo (17.1.29.806), both Plato and the famed mathematician and astronomer Eudoxus spent time there with the priests. Moreover, the fact that Moses, according to Manetho, was one of the learned (A^oyicov) priests would enhance his reputation, since this word implies not only erudition but also skill and eloquence in words, an attribute much prized among the Greeks (CA 1.235). Furthermore, Moses is depicted not only as a priest but also, in a compliment which would have been especially appreciated in the Hellenistic Age, with its premium on applied sci­ ence, as a scientist, inasmuch as, according to Apion, he set up a model of a boat to serve as a sundial (CA 2.11). T h e importance of such an invention may be seen from the fact that the famous preSocratic philosopher Anaximenes was said to have been the first to show a sundial (Pliny, Natural History 2.187). Its importance to the Romans is indicated by Pliny's remark that a magnificent sundial in the shape of an obelisk was erected by Augustus in the Campus Martius (36.73). Indeed, we are told, though, to be sure, Josephus does not give us his source, that the Egyptians wished to regard Moses as remarkable (GauuxxaTOv) and even divine (Oeiov) and actually sought to claim him as one of their own (CA 1.279). 7

2. The Antiquity of the Jews T o impute antiquity to the Jewish people was a compliment of the highest sort, since, as Josephus states, every nation attempts to trace its origin back to the remotest antiquity in order not to appear to be mere imitators of other peoples (CA 2.152). T h e very title of the Antiquities, 'ApxaioAoyioc, literally "ancient lore," sought to emphasize, as Josephus himself states in the very first statement in Contra Apionem, the extreme antiquity of the Jewish people. In fact, the title Contra Apionem is not Josephus' own; and one of the titles in the manu8

7

S e e C a r l R . H o l l a d a y , Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1: Historians ( C h i c o : S c h o l a r s , 1983) 189, 1 9 4 - 9 5 , n o t e s 6 - 9 . O n t h e i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h t h e a n c i e n t s a t t a c h e d to a n t i q u i t y , see m y Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, 1 7 7 - 2 0 0 . 8

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

253

scripts, riepi dpxaioxriToq 'Io\)8aicov, Concerning the Antiquity of the Jews, emphasizes this theme. Hence, when Apion declares that the Jews are Egyptians by race, they were being associated with those w h o m the Greeks regarded as the most ancient of civilizations (CA 2.28). Indeed, according to Herodotus, the Egyptians claimed that human beings had been first spontaneously generated in Egypt and that they were the first people to look into the sky to conceive that there were gods (2.2-4). Herodotus states that when his predecessor, the Greek logographer Hecataeus of Miletus, on a visit to Egypt, traced his ancestry back to a god in the sixteenth generation, the Egyptian priests led him, as they later did Herodotus, into the interior of a temple and showed him 345 statues of successive generations of priests with­ out going back to a god (2.143). Moreover, Plato, the most respected of philosophers in the Hellenistic period, refers to ten thousand years of Egyptian history (Laws 2.656E). O n e recalls the famous conversa­ tion of Solon with an aged Egyptian priest w h o spoke of the Greeks as children, since they had no immemorial past (ap. Plato, Timaeus 22B). Even while casting aspersions on the Jews as lepers w h o had been expelled from Egypt, Manetho dates this expulsion as having occurred only 125 years after Aegyptus and Danaus, the marriage of whose children produced the ancestors of the Greeks; and he thus gives the status of antiquity to the Jews (CA 1.231). Indeed, Apion, w h o assigns a relatively late date to Moses, namely in the eighth century BCE, actually aggrandizes the stature of the Jews, inasmuch as the date that he gives for the Exodus, 7 5 4 - 7 5 3 BCE, is thus synchronized with the date of the founding of Carthage by the Phoenicians, whose reputation was so great because they had given the alphabet to the Greeks, and of the founding of R o m e by Romulus (CA 2.17). 9

10

3. The Stubbornness of the Jews The stubbornness of the Jews in their obedience to the law, which is ridiculed by the anti-Jewish Agatharchides (CA 1.209-12), would have

9

Cf. M . H a d a s , " P l a t o in Hellenistic F u s i o n , " Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (1958) 3 - 1 3 ; idem, Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion ( N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i ­ versity, 1959) 7 2 - 8 2 . A c c o r d i n g to E u s e b i u s (Praep. Evang. 10.10.16), A p i o n a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e E x o d u s 10

254

LOUIS FELDMAN

elicited praise from many of the ancients, since this was a quality possessed in supreme degree by the Spartans, inasmuch as they had remained faithful for so long to Lycurgus' laws (CA 2.225). Sparta's prestige was especially high in first-century R o m e , inasmuch as a Spartan squadron had fought for Octavian against Antony at Actium, so that Sparta received in subjection, as a reward, several former perioecic cities (Plutarch, Antony 67). Moreover, some might have known of the tradition that the Jews and the Spartans were related, being descended from Abraham (1 Mace 12:20-23 and Josephus, Ant. 12.225-28). As for Agatharchides' implication that the Jews, in refusing to fight on the Sabbath, were submitting to naive superstition, the reader might well have thought of the Spartans, who, it will be recalled, at the crucial moment when the Persians in their first invasion of Greece were at Marathon, declined to send help because, as the Spartans said, it would be breaking their law to do so, the m o o n not being full (Herodotus 6.106). Similarly, in their contempt for death, the Jews, far from deserving the ridicule heaped upon them for their stubbornness by Agatharchides, would have been admired by many of the ancients, as we see in Hecataeus' statement that they deserve praise because they submitted to many beatings rather than obey Alexander's c o m m a n d to have his soldiers, including the Jews, assist in the building of a pagan temple (CA 1.192-93). O n e is reminded of the remark of the deposed Spartan king Demaratus to Xerxes, that while the Spartans are, to be sure, free men, their freedom is not absolute, since they do have a master set over them, namely law (vojioq), w h o m they fear much more than the Persians fear their king (Herodotus 7.104). This respect for law, shared by the Jews and the Spartans, would surely have impressed the Romans, who likewise had such a long tradition, dating back at least to the Twelve Tables, of regard for law. And yet, as Josephus remarks, even the Spartans have, on occasion, proven less loyal to their laws and, unlike the Jews, have sometimes surrended en masse to the enemy, in defiance of their law (CA 2.231).

h a d o c c u r r e d in t h e t i m e of I n a c h u s , t h e son of O c e a n u s a n d T e t h y s , b o t h of w h o m w e r e T i t a n s , a n d h e n c e of t h e s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n of t h e G r e e k g o d s . If J o s e p h u s h a d k n o w n this t r a d i t i o n , this w o u l d h a v e i m p a r t e d e v e n g r e a t e r a n t i q u i t y t o t h e J e w s , b u t a p p a r e n t l y h e p r e f e r r e d t h e l a t e r d a t e b e c a u s e it a s s o c i a t e d t h e J e w s w i t h t h e Phoenicians a n d the R o m a n s .

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

255

4. The Alleged Intolerance of the Jews Manetho says that Osarsiph-Moses ordained by his first law that his followers should have no connection with any save members of their own confederacy (CA 1.238). Lysimachus declares that Moses exhorted the Jews to show kindness to no Gentile (CA 1.309), and Apollonius Molon condemns the Jews for their illiberalism in refusing admission to those who had different views of G-d or w h o led a different mode of life (CA 2.258). Nevertheless, while all of these remarks have a vicious intent, some of their readers might well have thought of the Spartans, w h o m Josephus calls to their attention, since they made a practice of expelling foreigners and would not allow their o w n citi­ zens to travel abroad lest they be corrupted by such contacts (CA 2.259). Likewise, readers could think of the revered Plato, w h o also, as Josephus notes (CA 2.257-59), suggested precautions to prevent foreigners from mixing at random with citizens (Laws, especially 12.949E ff.). And, in any case, a reader might well counter with the observation that Egyptians should not frown upon those w h o are contrary to all others, when, as Herodotus, on the whole a most sympathetic observer of Egyptian life, remarks, everything in Egypt in the way of customs and laws is the reverse of what it is elsewhere (2.91 and 6.35.2ff.). T h e matter was apparently proverbial, as we see in a speech of Oedipus in Sophocles: "They behave as if they were Egyptians, bred the Egyptian way! D o w n there the m e n sit indoors all day long weaving, while the w o m e n go out and attend to business" (Oedipus at Colonus 337-41). Connected with the charge of exclusiveness is Manetho's charge, perhaps based—if he knew the Bible—on the biblical prohibition of walking in "their" statutes (Lev 18:3), that the Jews show intolerance by their deliberate disdain for the gods worshiped by the Egyptians and by their contrariness in not abstaining from the flesh of animals held in special reverence in Egypt and in their killing and consum­ ing many of them (CA 1.239). T h e Jews are said to have gone so far in their perversity that they habitually used the very sanctuaries of the Egyptians as kitchens for roasting the venerated sacred animals, and forced the priests and prophets to slaughter them and then turned the priests and prophets out stark naked (CA 1.249). Yet, such a charge, especially coming from an Egyptian priest, might well have proven ineffective so far as Greek readers were concerned, in view of the similar repugnance to animal-worship shown

256

LOUIS FELDMAN

by such philosophers as Sextus Empiricus (Hypotyposeis 3.219). As Pease has aptly remarked, such animal-worship appeared to intelligent Greeks and Romans to be at best exotic and at worst repulsive. Thus, Diodorus is astonished at the Egyptians' worship of living animals and by the fact that Egyptian spinsters denied themselves food for the animals' sake (1.83.1, 1.84.1, 1.86.1, 1.91.1). H e notes in amaze­ ment that a R o m a n soldier was lynched during the late Republic period because he had accidentally killed a cat (1.83). Likewise, Antiphanes sarcastically remarks that the Egyptians think that eels are gods, indeed the most valuable of gods (frg. 147, Kock 2.71 = Athenaeus 7.299E). Timocles asks of what possible help an ibisgod or a dog-god can be to a human being (frg. 1, Kock 2.300 = Athenaeus 7.300A-B). T h e Rhodian poet Anaxandrides bluntly de­ clares that he cannot be an ally of the Egyptians in view of the tremendous gulf between Egyptians and Greeks in beliefs and cus­ toms (frg. 39, Kock 2.150 = Athenaeus 7.299A-300A). In particular, he comments on the fact that he sacrificed and ate animals which they considered gods. T h e y worship even field mice, he exclaims. Pliny the Elder, a learned R o m a n and a contemporary of Josephus, likewise illustrates how a charge by an Egyptian of Jewish intoler­ ance might have been received by an intellectual, when he attacks the Egyptian worship of beedes—a practice which, he notes, Apion attempts to excuse (Natural History 30.90). Hence, it is not correct to say that Apion's is a literary text which is the product of an elite level of society and which has agenda peculiar to discourse at that level, since Pliny was of a similar elite level and with similar agenda. Likewise, Apion's denunciation of the Jews for their sacrificing of domestic animals (CA 2.137) would most probably have fallen flat, since, as Josephus remarks, the Greeks would hardly have been moved by indignation by such a charge, inasmuch as they, like the Jews, sacrificed such animals to the gods and then made a feast of the victims (CA 2.138). Indeed, it will be recalled that in the classic myth Prometheus, the god w h o commanded so much sympathy because he championed the cause of humankind, taught them how to sacrifice animals to the gods (Hesiod, Theogony 5 3 5 - 5 7 ) . 11

In particular, Apion's charge that the Jews kept an ass's head in

11

A . S. P e a s e , ed., Cicero, De Natura Deorum ( C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a r d University, 1955) 1 . 2 8 9 - 9 1 , o n De Natura Deorum 1.43, lists t w e n t y - n i n e references in classical l i t e r a t u r e t o t h e a t t a c k o n t h e w o r s h i p of a n i m a l s .

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

257

the Temple and worshiped it {CA 2.80), amusing and even shocking as it might have appeared, might have proven unconvincing, first because it appeared inconsistent that the Egyptians, w h o themselves worshiped animals as gods, should have objected when others did likewise. Second, the mention of the ass might well have produced a positive reaction. While it is true that the ass had negative conno­ tations in the mythological story of Midas, w h o was given an ass's ears as punishment for preferring Pan to Apollo in their musical con­ test (Ovid, Met. 11.146-93), and while the ass is regarded as a lowly beast in Apuleius' second century Metamorphoses, still, when the ass is first mentioned in Greek literature, it is in a simile, with distinctly creditable implications, where Ajax's slow retreat is compared to an ass's stubborn resistance in the fields (Homer, II. 11.558). Moreover, the ass was sacred to Dionysus (Pseudo-Oppianus, Cynegetica 4.256; Lactantius, Institutes 1.21-27), since both Dionysus and his compan­ ion Silenus constantly rode an ass, and to Apollo (Pindar, Pythian 10.33, scholia on 10.49), and was sacrificed both at Lampsacus (Ovid, Fasti 1.391, 440; 6.345) and at Tarentum (cf. Aelian, Varia Historia 12.34); Callimachus, frgs. 187 and 188; Simmias of Rhodes, ap. Antoninus Liberalis, Met. 20 [ed. Martini]) and among the Hyper­ boreans, as well as being associated at R o m e with Vesta and crowned at the Consualia. Moreover, according to the epic poet Eratosthenes, the asses on which the satyrs were mounted in the great battle of the gods against the giants were the key to victory, since their braying frightened the enemy (Katasterismoi 11, p. 246, ed. West). W e also hear of a contest between Priapus and a donkey of Dionysus as to which of the two had a more perfect organ of generation. According to Lactantius, Priapus, chagrined at his loss, killed his rival (De Falsa Religione 1.22); but, according to Hyginus, Priapus w o n but placed the donkey, as compensation, among the constellations of the sky (Astronomia 2.3.33). Moreover, asses played key roles in military victories. In one case, according to Pausanias, it was their timely braying that led to the routing of the Molossians by the Ambrakiots, w h o later dedicated a bronze statue of an ass in token of gratitude (10.18.4); and in an­ other instance, according to Herodotus, it was Darius' contingent of asses which proved most effective in the rout of the Scythian cavalry 12

12

See Bezalel B a r - K o c h v a ' s essay, " A n Ass in t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e — t h e O r i g i n s a n d D e v e l o p m e n t of t h e S l a n d e r , " i n c l u d e d in this v o l u m e .

258

LOUIS FELDMAN

(4.129). W e may add that the fact that, according to Apion, it was Antiochus Epiphanes w h o discovered the ass's head in the Temple (CA 2.80) might well have hurt his cause, inasmuch as Antiochus was regarded as a madman, at least by some. As the highly respected Polybius puts it, "Respectable folk did not know what to make of him. Some regarded him as a simple and modest man, while others said that he was insane" (26.1). In particular, he was criticized for his hobnobbing with the c o m m o n people and for his arbitrariness in dispensing gifts. Likewise arising from the alleged Jewish disdain for non-Jews was the libel that when Antiochus Epiphanes entered the Temple, he discovered a Greek w h o was being fattened for sacrifice (CA 2.91-96). Bickermann believes that this canard arose among Greek literary groups that were close to Antiochus and sought to defend his apparent sacrilege in desecrating the T e m p l e . But again, in view of the source or sources of Polybius, Diodorus, and Livy, as we have noted, such a story might well have aroused sympathy for Antiochus' opponents, the Jews. It was Antiochus, we must not forget, who had challenged R o m a n power in the East by invading Egypt and with­ drawing only when Popilius Laenas drew his famous circle around him and told him that he must give an answer to the Senate's decree demanding that he evacuate Egypt before he stepped out of that circle (Livy 45.12; Polybius 29.11; Cicero, Philippica 8.81; Velleius Paterculus 1.10). In addition, R o m a n readers were not likely to have forgotten that it was Antiochus' father, Antiochus III, who had given refuge to Hannibal, that most feared and most despised of Roman enemies, when he had fled Carthage (Livy 33.49). Moreover, readers might well have pointed their fingers at the Egyptians for their hy­ pocrisy in circulating such a tale when they themselves, according to Apollodorus, were said to sacrifice foreigners to their own outiandish gods (2.5.11); but, of course, it is c o m m o n for a group to deflect a charge against them by accusing a related group of the same thing. 13

14

13

Cf. also Polybius 2 8 . 2 2 , 2 9 . 2 4 , 3 0 . 2 5 . 1 - 2 6 . 9 ; D i o d o r u s 2 9 . 3 2 , 3 1 . 1 6 ; Livy 4 1 . 2 0 . E . J . B i c k e r m a n n , " R i t u a l m o r d u n d Eselkult. E i n B e i t r a g z u r G e s c h i c h t e a n t i k e r Publizistik," MGWJ 71 (1927) 2 5 5 - 6 4 . 14

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

259

5. The Virtues of the Jews The rhetorician Apollonius Molon criticized the Jews as the most untalented (a^veczdxovq, "most lacking in natural talent," "most witless") of all barbarians and the only people w h o have contributed no useful invention to civilization (CA 2.148). But lack of inventive­ ness is clearly a laudatory trait in Herodotus, where we read that it was the boast of the Egyptians that throughout their history of 11,340 years no change had taken place in their nature, manners, or cus­ toms (2.142). Similarly, Plato's ideal state, being perfect, admits of no change; and, indeed, any change that does occur is degeneration (Rep. 8.546A). Moreover, we may remark, Apion's charge might well have proven ineffective, since it would couple the Jews with the much admired Spartans (Plato, Rep. 8.544C), who, as we hear in Thucydides' account of the Lacedemonian Congress, merely keep what they have and devise nothing new, whereas the Athenians are given to innovation (vecoTeporcoioi) (1.70.2). As Plutarch notes, "From novelty in principle follows novelty in decisions, something which is bound to give rise to many experiences and policies destructive to the har­ mony, as it were, of the established government" (Lycurgus 27.4). For a period of five hundred years, he says, Sparta continued to be the leading city of all Greece; and throughout that period, at least in the popular imagination, its people strictly observed Lycurgus' laws and made no alteration at all in them. Moreover, Moses is portrayed as persuasive—a key trait in Thucydides' description of the ideal statesman (2.60)—in that, even according to the arch-Jew-baiter Lysimachus, he was able to persuade his fol­ lowers, who were about to perish in the desert, to take their courage into their own hands and to follow him until they reached inhabited country (CA 1.309). Furthermore, despite the fact that, according to the Bible (Exod 4:10, 6:12), Moses had a speech impediment, Manetho accords him the compliment of being eloquent in words w h e n he refers to him as one of the learned (Aoyicov, "eloquent," "skilled in words") (CA 1.235). As to the virtue of courage, we have already noted that the Jews' 15

15

Cf. K . R . P o p p e r , The Open Society and Its Enemies ( L o n d o n : R o u d e d g e a n d K e g a n P a u l , 1945) 1.41: " T h r o u g h his d o c t r i n e of t h e similarity b e t w e e n S p a r t a a n d t h e perfect state, P l a t o b e c a m e o n e of t h e m o s t successful p r o p a g a n d i s t s of w h a t I s h o u l d like t o call ' t h e G r e a t M y t h of S p a r t a ' — t h e p e r e n n i a l a n d influential m y t h of t h e s u p r e m a c y of t h e S p a r t a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a n d w a y of life."

260

LOUIS

FELDMAN

stubbornness in adhering to their ancestral laws would have likewise produced admiration for them as for the Spartans. Moreover, Josephus notes that Apollonius Molon is actually guilty of contradicting him­ self, for in one place he reproaches the Jews as cowards and in another accuses them of temerity (T6A|ICCV) and insanity (djiovoia, "loss of all sense") (CA 2.148). W e may here suggest that to Josephus' audience temerity (xoAjiav) may not necessarily have had a pejorative conno­ tation, since Pindar, for example, speaks of courage for noble acts, using the same word, i6X\iav (Nemean Odes 7.59); and Herodotus, of w h o m Josephus was fond, speaks, again positively, of the amaze­ ment and obvious admiration which the Egyptian king Rhampsinitus had for the thief's sagacity (rcoAucppoauvri) and boldness (xoXjurj) in managing to outwit the king and his guards several times (2.121). Moreover, in Josephus himself, the word x6X\ia sometimes has a favorable connotation, as for example, in the statement that Antigonus wished to create an impression of the superiority of his men not only in boldness (x6A|ir|) but also in numbers (J.W. 1.133). Likewise, there is admiration in the attitude of the Romans toward the Sicarii who committed mutual suicide at Masada; and when they listen to the report by a w o m a n survivor as to how the deed was done, they are incredulous of such amazing boldness (TG> jneyeBei TOU xoA^jiaToq) (J. W. 7.405). That the word TOA^CC might have had a positive connotation in Josephus' day is clear from the fact that the corresponding verb xo^iidco is used in a positive sense of "to take courage" in Josephus' contemporary Mark, who in his Gospel says that Joseph of Arimathea, "an honorable senator, w h o himself was expecting the kingdom of G-d, taking courage (xoX[ir\oaq), went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus" (15:43). A similar sense is found in another contem­ porary, Plutarch (Camillas 22). 16

Moreover, in Apion's own words, the Israelites, when they made their exodus from Egypt, reached Judaea in only six days (CA 2.21). Yet, elsewhere he describes them as blind and lame and suffering from all kinds of disease (CA 2.23); hence, as Josephus, who is like­ wise aware of the pro-Jewish intimations in Apion despite the latter's dastardly intentions, remarks, Apion is actually complimenting the 17

16

c

F o r t h e e v i d e n c e see m y " J o s e p h u s as a Biblical I n t e r p r e t e r : t h e Aqedah" JQR 75 ( 1 9 8 4 ^ 8 5 ) 2 2 4 , n . 3 8 . A p i o n is h e r e indirectly c o n f i r m i n g o n e of t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e S a b b a t h , as s t a t e d in D e u t e r o n o m y 5 : 1 5 , n a m e l y t o c o m m e m o r a t e t h e E x o d u s . 17

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

261

strength and courage of the Israelites, since they not only traversed a desert but also had to fight against their enemies. As to temperance, Josephus cites the compliment paid to the Jews by the famous Aristotle when the latter speaks of the great and as­ tonishing endurance and temperance (oco(ppoot>vr|v) in manner of life (8iaiTTi, which refers particularly to diet, as the English derivative indicates) displayed by the J e w w h o m he met in Asia Minor (CA 1.182). As to Apion's denunciation of the Jews for not eating pork (CA 2.137), such a belief could be matched by the Egyptian absten­ tion from eating lamb (Philo, Legal 45.362); moreover, other peoples— in Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, and India—likewise abstained from eating pork, and in Egypt it could be eaten only at full m o o n . Readers might well have understood the rationale of abstention from pork since an author such as Agathocles, w h o lived in perhaps the fourth century BCE and who, in his History of Cyzicus, records the service rendered by a pig to Zeus and notes that it was for this reason that the Cretans, in whose island Zeus was said to have been born, abstained from eating pork (cf. Athenaeus 9.18.375E-376A). Indeed, we may conjecture that the abstention from pork may have been one of the links that led to the theory that the Jews' origin was in Crete (Tac Hist. 5.2.1). And to be associated with the Cretans was hardly a reproach. Furthermore, the second-century Aelian, on the authority of the fourth century B C E Eudoxus, gives the same explanation for the Egyptian abstention from sacrificing pigs as one of those given by Plutarch for the Jewish abstention from eating pork (Quaestiones Convivales 4.5.2), namely as a tribute to the usefulness of pigs in agriculture (De Natura Animalium 10.16). Moreover, Plutarch, we may venture to suggest, represents the Stoic and intellectual norm of tolerance; yet he asks how one can condemn the Egyptians for irrationality in abstaining from certain animals when the Pythagoreans, who were certainly highly respected, especially during the revival of Neo-Pythagoreanism in the first century B C E and in the first cen­ tury CE, have regard for a white cock and refrain from eating red mullet and the sea anemone (Quaestiones Convivales 4.5.2). H e likewise calls attention to the fact that the Magi, the followers of Zoroaster, esteem the hedgehog and abominate water mice. 18

19

As to Apion's argument that the Jews lack the virtue of justice

18

See J . P . V . B a l s d o n , Romans and Aliens ( L o n d o n : D u c k w o r t h , 1979).

19

See m y " P r o j e w i s h I n t i m a t i o n s in T a c i t u s ' A c c o u n t , " 3 3 9 - 4 6 .

262

LOUIS FELDMAN

and that the proof of the injustice of the Jewish laws lies in that the Jews have been slaves of one nation after another (CA 2.125), this would have been unconvincing, since, as a reader knowledgeable in Egyptian history would have known, the Egyptians themselves had for hundreds of years been subject first to the Persians, then to the Macedonians, and then to the Romans. As to the virtue of piety, Josephus' R o m a n readers would have joined him in turning against Apion the latter's charge that the Jews had shown impiety in not erecting statues to the emperors (CA 2.73). This alleged impiety, as Josephus says, is rather an indication of the magnanimity (magnanimitatem) and moderation of the Romans in that they do not require their subjects to violate their own national laws and in that they are grateful for such honors as those nations, ac­ cording to their own laws, are permitted to pay.

6. Cleopatra Apion, apparently instead of blaming Cleopatra for not giving the Jews grain in time of famine, had reproached the Jews (CA 2.56), as if to say that they had deserved this treatment. T o Josephus' audi­ ence, however, especially those loyal to R o m e , the fact that Cleopatra had oppressed the Jews would almost certainly have aroused sympa­ thy for them because of her ruthless acts toward members of her own family but more particularly because of her ability to ensnare Antony and to induce him to fight against his own country and because of her ultimate faithlessness even to him. T o a Roman reader, the Jews were to be complimented for their ability to see through her cruelty and treachery and thus avoid any dealings with her. The fact that she refused to give them food during a famine was some­ thing of which the Jews had cause to be proud, not ashamed. T h e disdain which the Romans felt for Cleopatra in the first century B C E is well seen in Virgil's Aeneid, which soon after its composition became, in effect, Rome's national poem, where a single word, nefas ("unspeakable abomination"), is enough to indicate Virgil's horror at the dishonorable alliance between her and Antony (Aen. 8.688). In Virgil's description of the batde of Actium (Aen. 8.675-713), Cleopatra plays the major, almost the sole, role on the Egyptian side. It is clearly she w h o is the real enemy, with her timbrel and her dogheaded Egyptian god Anubis, and with her orders to her multitudes.

263

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

Moreover, Virgil's Dido, in Book 4 of the Aeneid, with her wild and passionate nature and her attempts to ensnare Aeneas, would seem to be a poetic version of Cleopatra. Similarly, Virgil's friend Horace sings a song of fervent rejoicing now that Cleopatra, w h o together with her contaminated crowd of followers had been preparing mad ruin for R o m e , has been defeated, fiercer than ever in her premedi­ tated death but still unyielding (Odes 1.37). Likewise, his contempo­ rary Propertius speaks of Cleopatra as a strumpet whose charms brought scandal upon R o m a n arms (3.11.29ff.). T o Lucan in the first century C E she is the turning point of R o m a n history; the issue stood doubtful whether the world would be ruled by a w o m a n of alien blood (Pharsalia 10.59-67). T o Josephus' contemporary, Pliny, moreover, she is the example par excellence of luxury and unbridled ambition (Natural History 9.119). While it is true that Romans would not necessarily have sympathized with Cleopatra's victims, this would have been true when her victims were like Antony, w h o was en­ snared by her charms; but in the instance of the Jews, sympathy would have been more likely, inasmuch as it was a clear case of oppression by Cleopatra. 20

7. The Rhetoric of Apion's Charges In the Hellenistic-Roman age the great majority of those likely to read the remarks of Apion and Josephus would have received an education culminating in rhetoric, which was considered the highest goal of culture. Inasmuch as reading was done aloud, so that the boundary between the written and spoken word was blurred, the categories of eloquence were imposed, as Marrou says, on every form of mental activity—poetry, history, and even philosophy. In the schools of rhetoric, especially as they are described in such works as Seneca the Elder's Suasoriae and Controversiae at the beginning of the first century, the goal was to show ingenuity of analysis and virtuos­ ity of expression; the themes that were set for the students were 21

22

2 0

See I. B e c h e r , Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur ( D e u t s c h e A k a d e m i e d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t e n z u Berlin. Schriften d e r S e k t i o n für A l t e r ­ tumswissenschaft; Berlin: A k a d e m i e - V e r l a g , 1966). See H . I. M a r r o u , A History of Education in Antiquity, t r a n s , b y G . L a m b ( N e w York: S h e e d a n d W a r d , 1956) 194. M a r r o u , 195. 21

2 2

264

LOUIS FELDMAN

deliberately extreme and artificial, such as whether a vestal virgin w h o has been convicted of breaking her vow and has been flung down a precipice without injury should be subjected to the ordeal a second time. Just as the reader of Juvenal's satires would realize that the bitterness, though based on reality and personal experience, was clearly exaggerated, so the reader of rhetorical tracts would under­ stand that the language was inflated. With the systematic suppression of freedom of speech by Augustus and his successors and with deci­ sion being made by the centralized bureaucracy, intellectuals turned increasingly to artificial displays of their talent in rhetoric. With the increased prominence of jurists in the development of the practical aspects of law, the rhetoricians were increasingly isolated from real­ ity. O n e can see this shift in Tacitus' Dialogue on Oratory, written at about the same time as the treatise Contra Apionem, about 100 CE, which stresses that oratory has lost its relevance and developed its extravagance because of the change in political life. The sophisticated readers of Apion's treatise—and they would have to be sophisticated to appreciate the fine rhetorical style—would realize that it is the work of a master of the art of insult; and Josephus, no mean rheto­ rician himself, shows clearly in the treatise Contra Apionem, his finest work stylistically, that he is extraordinarily adept in answering an invective by transforming its charges into concessions. 23

Because of Apion's reputation as a rhetorician addicted to exag­ geration, as noted above, we would seem to be justified in assuming that his literate readers would have viewed his sweeping statements with some skepticism. H e must have been famous as a rhetorician, since his contemporary, the Emperor Tiberius, nicknamed him "the world's drum," and since Pliny the Elder, later in the first century, called him "a timbrel of his own reputation" (propriae famae tympanum) (Natural History, preface, 25). In the second century Aulus Gellius, who, to judge from his statement that "he [Apion] is perhaps too verbose through his reprehensible love of display, for he is a great self-advertiser in parading his learning" (5.14.4), obviously did not admire him, is forced to admit that Apion possessed an extensive and varied knowledge of things Greek and that his books (presum­ ably the Aegyptiaca) were not lacking in fame (incelebres). Indeed, in an age w h e n polymaths were much admired, his versatility is indicated

2 3

S e e G . A . K e n n e d y , Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition fiom Ancient to Modern Times ( C h a p e l Hill: U n i v e r s i t y of N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 1980) 1 1 1 - 1 2 .

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

265

by his nickname, Pleistonikes (that is, "victor in very many contests"), found in the first-century Pliny the Elder (Natural History 37.19.75), in Aulus Gellius (7.8.1), and in the early third-century Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1.21.101.3). In view of the generally negative impression of Apion, we should expect that readers might well have perceived and indeed reveled in his self-contradictions and in his proJewish intimations. T h e fact that in Egypt, allegedly the hotbed of hostility to Judaism, the only anti-Jewish comments in literary or semiliterary papyri that have been found thus far occur in the so-called Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs would seem to indicate that anti-Judaism was not as widespread among literate people as scholars generally think. W e must admit, moreover, that to judge at least from extant references, Apion's anti-Jewish comments made no impression one way or the other, since in the forty-three references to Apion's works in pagan literature and in the three papyrus fragments of his works there are no remarks about J e w s , not even w h e n he is cited by such an avowed opponent of the Jews as Seneca the Younger (ap. Augustine, City of G-d 6.11). Apion's comments about the wonders of Egypt seem to have attracted much more interest. But these references occur primarily in grammatical or scientific or antiquarian works or in commentaries (this is particularly true of the references in Athenaeus), where there was little relevance in citing Apion's charges against the Jews. T h e very fact that Josephus in his apologetic work singled out Apion as his chief opponent indicates that he regarded Apion as a popular and influential writer. While it is true that no one mentions the treatise Contra Apionem in extant literature until the Christian Theophilus of Antioch at the end of the second century, who cites nine passages (To Autolycus 3.19-29) from Book 1, and, by implication, Celsus (ap. Origen, Against Celsus) somewhat earlier in the century, certainly Apion was well-known and his work popular, even if it was subjected to ridicule. 24

25

2 4

See F . J a c o b y , Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 3 C : 1 2 2 - 4 4 , n o . 6 1 6 . I n a d d i t i o n , as I. Lévy, " L a l é g e n d e d ' O s i r i s et Isis c h e z S é n è q u e , " Latomus 10 (1951) 1 6 1 - 6 2 , h a s n o t e d , A p i o n w a s a p p a r e n t l y a m a j o r s o u r c e of P l u t a r c h ' s De hide et Osiride; a n d yet, if P l u t a r c h h a d r e a d A p i o n ' s anti-Jewish d i a tribes, h e shows n o i n d i c a t i o n of A p i o n ' s v e n o m in his m a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e J e w s in his v o l u m i n o u s w o r k s . See S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors, 1 . 4 2 9 - 3 2 . 2 5

266

LOUIS FELDMAN

8. The Character of the Egyptians Moreover, the R o m a n reader might well have viewed Apion's charges with skepticism because he was from Egypt, a country which, though famous for its antiquity and for its excellence in the sciences, was nonetheless infamous for its skill in abuse (convicid), its ever-ready tongue, and its impudent wit (lingua nimium salibusque protervum), as Statius, Josephus contemporary, puts it (Silvae 5.5.66-69). His con­ temporary, Plutarch, generalizes that the Egyptians are by nature light-minded (Kotxpouq) and readily inclined to change and novelty (|i£T(xPoA,Trv KOCI vecoxepiojxov) (De hide et Osiride 72). Another contem­ porary, D i o Chrysostom, describes them as frivolous (rcoci^ovxeq) and heedless, and never at a loss for fun-making, enjoyment, and laugh­ ter (32.1-2). Still another contemporary, Pliny the Younger speaks of them as a windy (ventosa, "puffed up," "conceited," "empty") and insolent (insolens, "immoderate," "haughty," and "arrogant") nation (Panegyricus 31.2). A further contemporary, Juvenal, devotes his fifteenth satire to a torrent of abuse against the Egyptians, stressing the extra­ ordinary paradoxes in their national character, combining feebleness with violence, worship of animals with killing of humans, abstention from certain vegetables with eating human flesh. T h e emperor Hadrian in the second century is said to have sounded a similar theme in describing them as "light-minded" (levem), unstable (pendulam), and blown about by every breath of rumor (Scriptores Historiae Augustae 29.8.1); they are, he adds, a folk most seditious (seditiosissimum), most deceitful (vanissimum), and most given to injury (iniuriosissimum) (29.8.5). T h e second-century historian Florus describes them as an unwarlike and treacherous people (4.2.60). D i o Cassius, in the early part of the third century, similarly speaks of the Egyptians as having a facile (pa8iov) and fickle (icowpov) character (51.17.1). In the third century we similarly hear that the Egyptians, like m a d m e n and fools, are led by the most trivial matters, such as omission of a greeting or refusal of a place in the baths, to disloyalty to the state and to riots (Scriptores Historiae Augustae 22.1). T h e same qualities noted by so many others— boastfulness, deceit, and lack of restraint—are likewise noted by the third-century Flavius Vopiscus (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Quadrigae Tyrannorum 7.4). 5

In particular, these negative qualities are stressed as characteristic of the people of Alexandria, whence Apion came. Thus, the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum in the first century B C E writes sarcasti­ cally, "If I were briefed to defend Alexandrians and to establish that

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

267

they are neither deceitful (fallaces) nor foolhardy (temerarii), I could make a long speech, but it would be a wasted effort" (7.2). Their boldness in speech, seditiousness, and cowardice are likewise high­ lighted by D i o Cassius in the third century. In return, the Alex­ andrians, as we can see from what has been termed their under­ ground resistance literature known as the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs, abused the R o m a n emperors. In view, then, of this bad reputation, despite their admitted antiquity, of the Egyptians generally and of the Alexandrians in particular, and of Apion the "windbag" above all, Roman readers would very likely have been disposed to read between the lines of Apion's tirades and, perhaps with some glee, find contradictions in his remarks and even praise of those w h o m he was attacking. 26

9. Conclusion T h e ancient world, as we can see particularly from the success of Jewish proselytism, was far from exhibiting the pervasive antiJudaism usually ascribed to i t . Even those works w h i c h were deliberately anti-Jewish actually have a number of touches which could be construed positively, though ironically they did not intend them to be so. T h e later anti-Jewish writers could not have helped but inherit the earliest c o m m e n t s by the p a g a n s — s u c h as Aristotle, Theophrastus, Megasthenes, and Hecataeus—which were favorable and even highly laudatory, on such issues as the antiquity of Moses and the wisdom of the ideal state, and which could not be glossed over. Indeed, Manetho's description of Moses as an Egyptian priest would identify him with the civilization and esoteric knowledge so much admired by the Greeks. As a matter of fact, the present study perhaps adds weight to the widely-held contention that Manetho's history was originally neutral toward the Jews and that it was only later that it underwent reworking by an anti-Jewish interpolator. The fact that Apion ascribes to Moses the creation of a model boat 27

28

2 6

See B a l s d o n , Romans and Aliens, 188. See m y Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, 8 4 - 1 7 6 . See m y " P h i l o - S e m i t i s m a m o n g A n c i e n t I n t e l l e c t u a l s , " Tradition 1 ( 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 ) 2 7 - 3 9 ; a n d m y P r o - J e w i s h I n t i m a t i o n s in Anti-Jewish R e m a r k s C i t e d in J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem, 1 8 8 - 8 9 , n. 2, a n d 1 9 4 - 9 5 , n . 14. T h e o n l y o t h e r essay t h a t d e a l s with t h e subject of p h i l o - S e m i t i s m , K . Z a c h e r ' s " A n t i s e m i t i s m u s a n d P h i l o s e m i t i s m u s 2 7

2 8

268

LOUIS FELDMAN

to serve as a sundial (CA 2.11) might well, to a perceptive reader, refute the charge that the Jews had contributed nothing useful to civilization (Apollonius Molon, ap. CA 2.148). Furthermore, Apion's dating of the Exodus in the year 7 5 4 / 7 5 3 B C E (CA 2.17) would have it coincide with two monumental events, the founding of R o m e and the founding of Carthage, the two greatest rivals for Mediterra­ nean supremacy in the centuries before Josephus. The association with R o m e , paralleled in rabbinic literature, would have been par­ ticularly helpful in getting a sympathetic hearing from the Romans and those who, like Polybius, admired them. Josephus, as well as his critics, were skilled rhetoricians; and one of the techniques which they learned in the schools was to take the topic of an encomium and transform it into a psogos—an invective— and vice versa. In effect, Josephus in his Contra Apionem has utilized this technique so that the principal charges against the Jews might well have proven ineffective. Thus, the charge that the Jews showed harmony a m o n g themselves but hostility toward others (CA 2.68), as well as the statement that the Jews were inordinately stubborn in their obedience to the law, would have bracketed them with the Spartans, w h o were so much admired in certain circles in antiquity. In some cases, the charges against the J e w s would have been unconvincing, because similar contentions could be made against the Egyptian accusers themselves, for example the canard of the worship of the ass's head, since the Egyptians worshiped animals, a practice so much abhorred by the Greeks, the Romans, and, of course, the monotheistic Jews. Likewise, the blood libel charge might have been discredited, this time because it was Antiochus Epiphanes, who was regarded by some as a madman and, in any case, had dared to challenge the R o m a n might in Egypt, and w h o had allegedly discov­ ered the Greek who was about to be sacrificed by the Jews. O f course, we must always be aware of the fact that hyperbole and caricature were the essence of ancient polemics, and we must be careful not to take either Apion or Josephus at face value. Finally, the attack on the Jews for failing to embody the cardinal 29

30

i m klassischen A l t e r t u m , " Preussische Jahrbücher 9 4 (1898) 1—24, is a p o p u l a r t r e a t ­ m e n t w h i c h h a s n o t h i n g to say a b o u t t h e issue of p r o - J e w i s h i n t i m a t i o n s in a n t i J e w i s h w r i t i n g s a n d , i n d e e d , v e r y little t o say a b o u t p h i l o - S e m i t i s m . S e e Song of Songs Rabbah 1.6.4 a n d m y discussion in " A b b a K o l o n a n d t h e F o u n d i n g of R o m e , " JQR 81 ( 1 9 9 0 - 9 1 ) 2 3 9 - 6 6 . Cf. t h e first-century T h e o n , Progymnasmata, c h a p t e r 8, e d . L. S p e n g e l , Rhetores Graeci (Leipzig: T e u b n e r , 1854) 2 . 1 1 2 , lines 1 7 - 1 8 . 2 9

3 0

269

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

virtues would have backfired, particularly because their conservatism would have been regarded as exhibiting wisdom like that of the Spartans; their stubborn courage would likewise have equated them with the Neo-Pythagoreans; their temperance, particularly in abstaining from eating certain animals, would have equated them with the Egyp­ tians, the Pythagoreans, and the Magi; their justice in adhering to their oaths would have elicited admiration, especially since the hated enemy of the Romans, Carthage, was notorious for its fides Punica; and their piety would have been admired, since the Romans, as we can see from Virgil and Livy, regarded this as a major quality pos­ sessed by those who had built the state, and since this gave the Romans an opportunity to exhibit their tolerance toward those w h o adhered to their ancestral laws. Last of all, the fact that Cleopatra had op­ pressed the Jews would have aroused sympathy for them on the part of the Romans, w h o hated and feared her so much. There is clearly a difference in attitude toward the Jews between Hecataeus in 300 B C E and Apion three centuries later. W e may, therefore, suggest that the latter inherited an earlier pro-Jewish tra­ dition, which was widely held among intellectuals and therefore could not be glossed over—for example, stressing the antiquity of M o s e s — and which he attempted to interpret in the worst possible way. This would seem to support the view, which we have noted, that Manetho's history, written about 270 BCE, was originally neutral toward the Jews and only later underwent reworking by an anti-Jewish interpo­ lator. This will explain why Apion, though undoubtedly unforgiving in his anti-Jewishness, implicidy acknowledges what are certainly some very pro-Jewish beliefs, especially about Moses. H e and the other anti-Jewish writers were sophisticated enough to realize that unre­ mittingly negative portraits do not always make the most effective abuse; such concessions would strengthen their anti-Jewish message and lend it credibility. It is clear that they are essential to the argu­ ments which he quotes from his opponents. T h e y are particularly interesting as evidence of the unprincipled character of the anti-Jewish propaganda, which was ready to represent as vices in its victims the same qualities which were commonly admired in pagan society as virtues. In Origen's attack on Judaism, we may see a similar attempt, through making concessions to them, to achieve credibility (Against Celsus). 31

31

See m y " O r i g e n ' s Contra Celsum a n d j o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem,

105-35.

270

LOUIS FELDMAN

That these pro-Jewish intimations are not due to Josephus' biased interpretation may be inferred from the fact that similar compliments may be found in a number of anti-Jewish writers, notably Tacitus (e.g., Hist. 5.2.3, 5.4.4, 5.10.1, 5.13.3), w h o are not cited by Josephus and w h o are no less vicious in their disdain for the Jews. N o one will doubt that an Apion was malicious in his intent, but that does not mean that he was necessarily read in that light by others, although admittedly we do not have explicit statements, other than those of Josephus, that his comments might have been seen to contain positive elements. T h e fact, nevertheless, that so many pagans were converted to Judaism during this period would seem to present a prima facie case for such a conclusion. O n e might argue that no ancient source actually equated, for example, the Jews with the Spar­ tans in their stubborn obedience to the law, internal harmony, and hostility toward outsiders, conservatism, and unyielding courage; with the same technique one could turn the c o m m o n modern anti-Jewish complaint about the Jews' love of money into a veiled compliment of their deftness in business, which skill is highly valued by our society when not tied to a hated minority. Perhaps we should view these not as veiled compliments but rather as a double standard that is all too familiar to a modern reader. But this is precisely the point; such remarks might well have turned some—and, in view of the known large-scale conversions to Judaism, perhaps many—readers to an admiration, however grudging, of the Jews.

T H E D E P I C T I O N O F T H E J E W S AS T Y P H O N I A N S AND JOSEPHUS' STRATEGY OF REFUTATION I N CONTRA APIONEM J A N WILLEM VAN H E N T E N AND R A ' A N A N

ABUSCH

University of Amsterdam

1. Introduction Chapter 39 of the book of Genesis describes an episode in the life of one of the first Israelites to visit Egypt. T h e narrative is often read as a story of seduction of a pious and chaste youth by the brutal wife of his new master. A young Israelite slave makes a very quick career for himself at the household of a rich Egyptian man, but is ruined by the advances of the wife of his master, or should we say his love affair with her? However, the story also has an ethnic dimension; there are no less than four explicit references to Egypt in Gen. 39:1-5 (39:1-2, 5) and two references to Joseph being a Hebrew in the repeated accusation of Potiphar's wife in 39:14, 17: "See, my husband has brought among us a Hebrew (HDtf ETK) to insult us . . . The Hebrew servant w h o m you have brought a m o n g us, came in to insult me". T h e Hebrew verb pPIK with the preposition 2 translated by "insult" in NRSVcan mean "to make love with someone", but also "joke about something or someone", that is "joke about us Egyptians". The tension described in this Biblical passage and embedded in Israelite consciousness of their prehistory provides apt background for the complicated and often hostile relationship between the Jewish people and the Egyptians. T h e Hellenistic period increasingly saw the heightening of this tension as both parties drew from their common prehistory ideological positions with respect to one another. Accusations against Jews repeated time and again seemed to have affected the life of the Jews in that country dramatically. 1

1

F o r e x a m p l e , see J . d e F r a i n e , Genesis uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (De B o e k e n v a n h e t O u d e T e s t a m e n t 1:1; R o e r m o n d - M a a s e i k : 1963) 2 7 7 . T h e e q u i v a l e n t ejxjcaiCcu in L X X c a n also h a v e a sexual c o n n o t a t i o n , see M . H a r l , La Genèse, ( L a Bible d ' A l e x a n d r i e ; Paris: 1986) 2 6 9 . I n J u d . 19:25 éjuiaCÇco is a e u p h e m i s m for r a p e , see LSJ 5 4 3 s.v. 1.2. W e w o u l d like t o t h a n k Prof. J . M . B r e m e r a n d Prof. P . W . v a n d e r H o r s t for t h e i r helpful c o m m e n t s . If n o t o t h e r w i s e specified, t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y ( L o e b Classical Library) is used.

272

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSGH

In Contra Apionem Josephus has collected a great number of these accusations and attempted to counter all of them. In our discussion of these accusations, we shall focus upon two important aspects: 1) some of the accusations seem to incorporate well-known mytho­ logical traditions which were highly evocative because of the powerful and pervasive negative associations they called forth. H o w can we isolate such traditions and determine what their impact may have been on the image of the Jews? 2) What can be said about Josephus' way of refuting the accusations in this respect? Does he offer rather superficial ad hoc refutations or does he use a specific strategy? Does he counter specific mythological traditions contained in the accusa­ tions? Can his refutations be considered succesful? It is impossible to discuss all the accusations transmitted in Contra Apionem in detail here. Instead this article will concentrate on a num­ ber of accusations which share a c o m m o n content in order to come to some conclusions about the transmission of non-Jewish mythologi­ cal traditions in Contra Apionem. Several criteria for distinguishing and isolating such traditions will be suggested in § 2. W e shall argue in that section that both the accusations concerning the Egyptian origin of the Jewish people and the veneration of the ass by the Jews are linked to a mythic theme of a battle of the (Graeco-)Egyptian royal god Horus against the evil god Seth-Typhon. This conflict myth was often used in Ptolemaic and R o m a n Egypt in propagandists texts to characterize the nature of military, political and ethnic conflicts in Egypt. O n e application of these mythological traditions concerns the wars of the Ptolemaic kings against indigenous Egyptian rebels. T h e myth must have been so powerful that both the Ptolemies as well as their indigenous opponents associated their own role with that of Horus, the god w h o overcomes Seth-Typhon and restores order. T h e popularity of the myth can to a large extent be explained because of Seth-Typhon's associations with foreigners. Seth-Typhon could represent any evil foreign people which threatened Egypt: Asians, Persians, Greeks, and probably also Jews. This is, for ex2

3

4

2

S e e J . W . v a n H e n t e n , " T y p h o n " , Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD) (eds. K . v a n d e r T o o r n ; B . Becking; P . W . v a n d e r H o r s t ; L e i d e n : 1995) col. 1657-1662. F o r references, see J . W . v a n H e n t e n , " A n t i o c h u s I V as a T y p h o n i c F i g u r e in D a n i e l 7 , " The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. A . S. v a n d e r W o u d e ; B E T L 106; L e u v e n : 1993) 2 2 3 - 2 4 3 , esp. 2 3 8 - 2 4 3 . F o r a n o v e r v i e w , see H . te V e l d e , Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of his Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion ( P r o b l e m e d e r Ä g y p t o l o g i e 6; L e i d e n : 1977 ) 1 0 9 - 1 5 1 . 3

4

2

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

273

ample, apparent from the famous Oracle of the Potter, which originated in indigenous Egyptian circles and has a clearly anti-Greek tenor. It contains allusions to the divine conflict of Horus and Seth-Typhon in an apocalyptic setting and characterizes the Greeks consistendy as Typhonians, i.e. people to be associated with Seth-Typhon, the god who creates chaos. W e shall discuss several passages in Contra Apionem and try to demonstrate that mythological traditions connected with Seth-Typhon form the principal propagandistic background of some of the accusations against the Jews. In § 3 we shall investigate Josephus' rebuttal of the libels connected with Seth-Typhon and, in so doing, attempt to characterize the nature of Josephus' refutations more gen­ erally, a task largely neglected by previous scholarship. This analysis of Josephus' strategies of refutation and his specific refutation of the libels connected with Seth-Typhon will ultimately address the ques­ tion of Josephus' familiarity with this mythological background. T h e limitations of his rhetorical strategies in countering attacks against Jews and Judaism are particularly poignant at the time Josephus composed this work, the midway point between the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the Jewish revolt of 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 . Finally, conclusions will be offered (§ 4).

2. Traditions about Seth-Typhon and their associations with the Jews in Contra Apionem It is an undisputed fact that Contra Apionem contains extensive pas­ sages which were not composed by Josephus himself. Yet, whether Josephus borrowed the material attributed to the Egyptian priest Manetho, the Alexandrian grammarian Apion and others from an intermediary source or whether he has transmitted the texts of these authors himself remains highly debated. T h e related question of the extent to which Josephus may have adapted his source material like­ wise presents an important methodological question with direct bear­ ing on Josephus' strategies of refutation. For example, Josephus may 5

5

See a m o n g o t h e r s S. Belkin, " T h e A l e x a n d r i a n S o u r c e for Contra Apionem I I , " JQR 27 ( 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 7 ) 1-32; L. T r o i a n i , " S u i f r a m m e n t i di M a n e t o n e nel p r i m o l i b r o del Contra Apionem di Flavio G i u s e p p e , " Studi Classici e Orientali 2 4 (1975) 9 7 - 1 2 6 , a n d for further references L. H . F e l d m a n , Josephus and Modern Scholarship ( B e r l i n - N e w York: 1984) 3 8 4 - 3 8 7 ; Idem, Josephus: a Supplementary Bibliography ( G a r l a n d R e f e r e n c e L i b r a r y of t h e H u m a n i t i e s 6 4 5 ; N e w Y o r k etc.: 1986) 8 5 7 - 8 5 8 .

274

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSGH

have made his task of refutation easier by manipulating his sources. These questions constitute a different, although potentially fruitful, line of investigation from the one presented here. W e shall instead concentrate on the gentile traditions as transmitted to us in the re­ ceived text in the hopes of using these as accurate reflections of gen­ tile views about the Jews and as windows into the mechanics of Josephus' rebuttal of the reproaches they contain. 6

2.1. T h e question of how to determine with a high degree of prob­ ability that a specific tradition has been incorporated in one or more of the libel passages requires the development of basic methodologi­ cal tools. This is particularly tricky when one is trying to isolate a complex of images or associations which pervaded both general modes of presentation (e.g. conflict myth) as well as specific traditions (e.g. Jewish origins). T h e cultural valence of these mythic representations must have been recognizable and pervasive in their day. T o demon­ strate the presence of such associations with gentile mythological traditions several complementary types of criteria can be used: 1) a remarkable detail which can only be understood against the background of a specific tradition; 2) a specific narrative sequence which is repeated in several independent passages and therefore also points to a specific traditional origin; 3) a detail which remains unclear in the present context when interpreted on its own, but which becomes illuminating when associated with a specific tradition; 4) a cluster of motifs which may appear in several texts but which is at least once explicidy associated with the central figure of a specific tradition. T h e probability that a certain non-Jewish tradition can be isolated in Josephus treatise increases as more than one criterion is matched. In addition, these criteria allow us to unravel the different strands of a given set of traditional associations. W e intend to illustrate the usefulness of these criteria in the following discussion of the usage of typhonic traditions in Contra Apionem. 5

6

O n e p r o b l e m w i t h this line o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n is t h a t J o s e p h u s is o u r sole s o u r c e for m a n y of t h e s e texts.

275

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

2.2. The accusation that the Jewish people is of Egyptian origin is reiterated by several of the gentile sources in Contra Apionem. This charge is linked to traditions about Horus's enemy Seth-Typhon through one specific phrase, the geographical designation of the city of Avaris, a city explicitly connected with Seth-Typhon in the text. This detail can be found in two fragments of Manetho's History of Egypt, which was written in the third century B C E (Aegyptiaca) and transmitted by Josephus (Fragments 42 and 5 4 = CA 1.73-91 and 1.228-251). These two passages contain several inconsistencies, which are pointed out in part by Josephus himself, but their basic content is clear. T h e Jewish people came from Egypt, left this country after a rebellion and went to Judaea where they founded the city of Jerusalem (cf. Josephus' summary of Manetho's accusation in CA 1.228229). In order to understand the reference to Seth-Typhon and its implication for the image of the Jews better, it is necessary to summarize the content of both fragments. Manetho's two fragments deal with Israel's history previous to the exodus from Egypt. T h e y contain references to the terrible deeds of the ancestors of the Jewish people and characterize the Jews as outcasts. In the first fragment Manetho identifies the Hyksos as the ancestors of the J e w s . H e describes the Hyksos as a people w h o invaded Egypt from the east, defeated the indigenous rulers, treated 7

8

9

10

7

CA 1.78, 8 6 , 2 3 7 . M a n e t h o w a s a n E g y p t i a n priest w h o s e r v e d a t H e l i o p o l i s , see R . L a q u e u r , " M a n e t h o (1)," PW27, 1 0 6 0 - 1 1 0 1 ; H . J . T h i s s e n , " M a n e t h o , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie 3 , 1 1 8 0 - 1 1 8 1 ; G . E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Lake-Acts and Apologetic Historiography ( N o v T S u p 6 4 ; L e i d e n : 1992) 1 1 7 - 1 3 6 . F o r a s u r v e y of t h e s e a n d r e lated texts, see C . Aziza, "L'utilisation p o l é m i q u e d u récit d e l ' E x o d e c h e z les écrivains a l e x a n d r i n s ( I V è m e siècle av. J . - C . - I e r siècle a p . J . - C . ) , " ANRW II 2 0 : 1 , 4 1 - 6 5 . F o r r e c e n t discussions of J o s e p h u s ' k n o w l e d g e of M a n e t h o a n d t h e a u t h e n ticity of t h e f r a g m e n t s in CA, see Sterling, Historiography, 1 1 9 - 1 2 3 a n d 2 6 1 - 2 6 2 ; M . P u c c i B e n Z e e v , " T h e Reliability of J o s e p h u s Flavius: T h e C a s e of H e c a t a e u s ' a n d M a n e t h o ' s A c c o u n t s of J e w s a n d J u d a i s m : Fifteen Y e a r s of C o n t e m p o r a r y R e s e a r c h ( 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 9 0 ) , " JSJ 2 4 (1993) 2 1 5 - 2 3 4 , e s p . 2 2 4 - 2 3 4 . S e e also M . S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (2 vols.; J e r u s a l e m : 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 0 ) I, 6 4 ; J . G . G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism ( S B L M S 16; N a s h v i l l e / N e w Y o r k : 1972) 1 1 7 118, a s s u m e s t h a t t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e r e n d e r i n g s of t h e n a m e O s a r s i p h in CA 1.238 (with G r e e k e n d i n g ) a n d 1.250 ( w i t h o u t G r e e k e n d i n g ) a n d t h e i n t r o d u c tion of t h e p a s s a g e in 1.250 b y "it is said t h a t " a r e e v i d e n c e of a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n b y an anonymous Alexandrian writer (Ps-Manetho) which originated about 40 C E . S t e r n , Authors I, 6 3 : " T h e fact t h a t h e m a k e s t h e H y k s o s e m i g r a t e t o J u d a e a , w h i c h in M a n e t h o ' s t i m e w a s n o t identical w i t h t h e w h o l e of P a l e s t i n e , a n d ascribes to t h e m t h e f o u n d i n g of J e r u s a l e m , c a n b e e x p l a i n e d o n l y o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n of a n identification of t h e H y k s o s w i t h t h e a n c e s t o r s of t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n . " 8

9

10

276

3

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

the Egyptian population very cruelly, set the Egyptian cities on fire and razed the temples to the ground (CA 1.75-76). T h e name Hyksos may derive from an old Egyptian phrase meaning "Rulers of the foreign countries". Josephus records that Manetho named them, based on the etymology of their name, the "king-shepherds" (CA 1.82; cf. 91), and associated them with "captives" as well (ai%|ndtaoToi). Modern scholars attempting to reconstruct the role of the Hyksos in Egypt imagine that they were a foreign group of Semitic or Hurritic origin which ruled Egypt from about 1 6 5 0 - 1 5 4 2 B C E . It is important for our discussion that Manetho refers to the foundation of a city in Egypt by the Hyksos called Avaris (CA 1.78; cf. 86). This city was known as the city of Seth-Typhon, according to Manetho's second fragment. Manetho thus narrates a coherent history in which, after the siege of Avaris by king Thoummosis, the Hyksos leave Egypt again, move to Judaea and found the city of Jerusalem (CA 1.88-90). In his second fragment, Manetho mentions the Hyksos again, because of their alliance with the defiled Egyptians, w h o are also associated with the Jews by Manetho. 11

12

13

14

11

W . H e l c k , " H y k s o s , " KP 2, 1264. O n t h e d e p e n d a b i l i t y of M a n e t h o ' s r e p o r t o n t h e H y k s o s , v a r i o u s o p i n i o n s h a v e b e e n e x p r e s s e d , see A. H . G a r d i n e r , Egypt of the Pharaohs. An Introduction (Oxford: 1961) 1 5 5 - 1 7 0 ; E. H o r n u n g , Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches (Ägyptologische A b h a n d l u n g e n 11 ; W i e s b a d e n : 1964) 3 0 - 4 1 ; J . v a n S e t e r s , The Hyksos: A New Investigation ( N e w H ä v e n / L o n d o n : 1966) 1 2 1 - 1 2 6 . T h i s n a m e m a y b e c o n n e c t e d w i t h S e t h - T y p h o n , as is a p p a r e n t from a n E g y p t i a n ritual text of t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B C E a n d t h e R a p h i a - d e c r e e w h i c h refer to t y p h o n i c figures as c a p t i v e s , see V a n H e n t e n , " A n t i o c h u s I V , " 2 3 9 - 2 4 0 . P . M o n t e t , Le drame dAvaris. Essai sur la pénétration des Sémites en Egypte (Paris: 1941); W . H e l c k , Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ( W i e s b a d e n : 1962); V a n S e t e r s , Hyksos. F o r f u r t h e r references a n d s u m m a r i e s of t h e discussion, see S t e r n , Authors I, 70; M . Bietak, " H y k s o s , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, 93-103. A v a r i s is l o c a t e d b y J o s e p h u s a c c o r d i n g t o c o d e x L a u r e n t i a n u s a n d t h e L a t i n v e r s i o n in t h e Saite n o m e (ev vopxp xco l a i r p ) , b u t this is c h a n g e d in several editions i n t o t h e S e t h r o i t e n o m e o n t h e basis of o t h e r witnesses of M a n e t h o ' s text; see P . C o l l o m p , " M a n é t h o n et le n o m d u n o m e o ù fut A v a r i s , " REA 4 2 (1940) 7 4 - 8 5 . P a r t of t h e p r o b l e m is w h e t h e r A v a r i s c a n b e identified w i t h t h e city of T a n i s (the biblical Z o a n , N u m . 13:22), t h e c a p i t a l of t h e T a n i t e n o m e , o r n o t . S t e r n , Authors I, 7 1 , states t h a t this identification is c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d n o w , b u t r e c e n t e x c a v a t i o n s c o n f i r m t h a t t h e r e w e r e t w o s e p a r a t e cities, b o t h l o c a t e d in t h e m o s t e a s t e r n p a r t of t h e d e l t a of t h e Nile. A v a r i s is l o c a t e d a t p r e s e n t - d a y T e l l e d - D a b ' a a n d T a n i s at S a e l - H a g a r , in t h e o p i n i o n of Bietak, " H y k s o s , " 9 8 ; M . R ö m e r , " T a n i s , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie V I , 1 9 4 - 2 0 9 , e s p . 195; D . A r n o l d , Die Tempel Ägyptens. Götterwohnungen, Kultstätten, Baudenkmäler ( Z ü r i c h : 1992) 2 1 0 - 2 1 4 w i t h r e f e r e n c e s . R . S t a d e l m a n n , " A u a r i s , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, 5 2 2 - 5 2 4 , a s s u m e s , h o w e v e r , o n t h e basis of J o s e p h u s t h a t A v a r i s w a s l o c a t e d " i m s e t h r o i t i s c h e n G a u , östlich v o m b u b a s t i s c h e n N i l a r m , " i.e. east of Q a n t i r ; cf. V a n S e t e r s , Hyksos, 1 2 7 - 1 5 1 . 12

13

14

277

T H E J E W S AS TYPHONIANS

In the second fragment, it is recorded that a certain pharaoh with the name Amenophis decided that he wanted to see the Egyptian gods. Everyone who is acquainted with Egyptian religion will become suspicious while reading this passage, for there were hardly gods w h o seemed to have been more visible than the Egyptian deities. Josephus does not fail to indicate this by referring to the Egyptian veneration of animals as manifestations of the g o d s . A sage w h o could foretell the future and who had the same name as the king (CA 1.232) suggested to the king to purge the Egyptian people: "(he) replied that he (the king) would be able to see the gods if he purged the entire country of lepers and other polluted persons" (CA 1.233). The pharaoh followed this advice and brought together all the Egyp­ tians whose bodies were affected by disease and set them to work in quarries east of the Nile, apart from the other Egyptians. T h e pharaoh allowed the defiled Egyptians to live in the city of Avaris in the eastern part of the Nile delta, an area which belonged to the Hyksos in an earlier period. In this way, the Hyksos as well as the Egyptian lepers are linked to Avaris. In this passage, Manetho informs the reader of a detail concern­ ing Avaris which must have carried tremendous significance for his 15

16

17

18

19

20

15

CA 1.232: erciGoixiiacxi Oecov yeveaGai 0eaxr|v. Cf. 2 3 3 : Oeoix; i8eiv. CA 1.254. T h e r e is a possibility t h a t J o s e p h u s a d a p t e d his s o u r c e h e r e t o refute it m o r e easily, m a y b e i n s p i r e d b y p a s s a g e s from t h e H e b r e w Bible like E x o d . 7 : 1 . In a n o t h e r p a s s a g e w i t h a similar story a t t r i b u t e d to C h a e r e m o n t h e a n g r i n e s s of t h e goddess Isis is t h e r e a s o n for A m e n o p h i s ' decision t o p u r g e E g y p t (CA 1.289). Cf. also CPJ 5 2 0 . T h i s A m e n o p h i s , son of P a a p i s , is k n o w n from o t h e r s o u r c e s ; see S t e r n , Authors I, 8 4 . 6xi 8\)vf|cexai Geoix; i8eiv, ei m G a p a v and xe A,£7tpG)v m i xcov aAAcov |j.iapcdv avGpamcov rpv xcopav a m a a v 7coir|aeiev. Cf. CA 1.257 K a 6 a p a i rnv xcopav; 1.260 d)v m G a p e v a a i xfjv Aiyujtxov. A p u r g e from lepers is also m e n t i o n e d b y D i o d o r u s 3 4 - 3 5 . 1 . 2 ; Lysim a c h u s (CA 1.304-311); C h a e r e m o n (CA 1.288); T a c i t u s , Hist. 5.3 a n d P o m p e i u s T r o g u s in J u s t i n u s 3 6 . 2 . 1 2 . H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a refers in this c o n n e c t i o n t o for­ eigners (FGH 2 6 4 F6); see S t e r n , Authors I, 8 5 . C o r r e s p o n d i n g passages r e c o r d t h e expulsion of t h e lepers from Egypt; see S t e r n , Authors I, 8 5 ; L. H . F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian ( P r i n c e t o n : 1993) 1 9 2 - 1 9 4 ; 2 4 0 - 2 4 1 ; 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 . After w r i t i n g d o w n his p r o p h e c y t h a t these defiled E g y p t i a n s w o u l d c o n q u e r E g y p t w i t h t h e i r allies a n d w o u l d rule t h i r t e e n y e a r s o v e r E g y p t a n d t h a t a n i n d i g e n o u s k i n g w o u l d oust the e n e m y a n d establish t h e final p e r i o d of salvation A m e n o p h i s c o m m i t s suicide. T h e p r e d i c t i o n of calamities b e c a u s e of foreign o p p r e s s i o n followed b y t h e r e d e e m ­ ing r e s t o r a t i o n of i n d i g e n o u s rule c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h t h e c o n t e n t of o t h e r E g y p t i a n p r o p h e c i e s , like the- Oracle of the Lamb of Bocchoris a n d t h e Potter's Oracle; cf. J . Y o y o t t e , " L ' E g y p t e a n c i e n n e et les origines d e l ' a n t i j u d a i s m e , " RHR 163 (1963) 138. M a n e t h o calls A v a r i s t h e a n c e s t r a l city of t h e H y k s o s a c c o r d i n g t o CA 1.242 (ziq Avccpiv xfjv rcpoyovucnv oruxcov 7caxp(8a; cf. CA 1.262). 16

17

18

19

2 0

278

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSCH

contemporary Alexandrian and Egyptian readers: "According to reli­ gious tradition this city was from earliest times dedicated to Typhon" (ecu 8'f| noXiq KOCTOCTT\V GeoAoyiav avcoOev Tu
22

23

24

25

2 1

See J . W . van Henten, "Typhon." H . K e e s , Horus und Seth als Götterpaar (2 vols.; Leipzig: 1 9 2 3 / 2 4 ) ; A . H . G a r d i n e r , The Library of A. Chester Beatty: Description of a Hieratic Papyrus with a Mythological Story, Love-Songs, and other Miscellaneous Texts ( T h e C h e s t e r B e a t t y P a p y r i , N o . I; O x f o r d : 1931) 8 - 2 6 ; J . Spiegel, Die Erzählung vom Streite des Horus und Seth in Pap. Beatty I als Literaturwerk ( G l ü c k s t a d t - H a m b u r g - N e w Y o r k : 1937); J . G . Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classic Sources (Liverpool: 1960); T e V e l d e , Seth; T e V e l d e , " S e t h , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie V , 9 1 1 . P . M o n t e t , Le drame; V a n S e t e r s , Hyksos, 1 7 1 - 1 8 0 ; T e V e l d e , Seth, 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 a n d 142; S t e r n , Authors I, 7 0 ; R . S t a d e l m a n n , " V i e r h u n d e r t j a h r s t e l e , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI, 1 0 3 9 - 1 0 4 3 . O n M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p i n these anti-Jewish a c c o u n t s of t h e e x o d u s , see G a g e r , Moses, 1 1 3 - 1 3 3 . O f c o u r s e , t h e e a r l i e r r u l e of t h e H y k s o s is m e a n t h e r e , CA 1.75-90. 2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

279

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

26

kitchens to roast the sacred animals which the people worshipped; and they would compel the priests and prophets to sacrifice and butcher the beasts, afterwards casting the m e n forth naked." (CA 1.248-249). At the e n d of this fragment, M a n e t h o emphasizes that Moses was responsible for the way of life (noXmia) and laws of these people, that he was a priest from Heliopolis, and finally, that his original name was Osarsiph (CA 1.250, 2 6 1 , 279, 286). T h e Hyksos and lepers were finally driven out of Egypt and were pur­ sued by pharaoh Amenophis and his son Rampses to the border of Syria (1.251). Manetho's fragment about the impure Egyptians can easily be read as a vicious prehistory of the Jewish people, notwithstanding Josephus' denial. This is apparent both from the framework used by Manetho as well as from several details, a m o n g which the references to Jerusalem and Moses are only the most obvious. It is also clear that Manetho's point in the second fragment is—again denied by Jose­ phus—that the Jews originated from Egypt, a fact already suggested by his remark that Moses was in fact an Egyptian priest from Heliopolis (cf. CA 2.10). Moreover, both fragments characterize the Jewish people by repeatedly emphasizing their association with the city of Avaris, the same city which was home to the Hyksos as well as the base of operation of the impure Egyptians (CA 1.78, 86, 237, 242, 243, 260, 261, 262, 296). Hyksos, lepers and Jews are associ­ ated with Seth-Typhon, the evil enemy of the gods, a fact which matches perfectly the brutal and sacrilegious acts committed against the Egyptians according to Manetho's account. 27

2.3. The content and sequence of events of Manetho's second legend about the origins of the Jewish people (Fragm. 54) corresponds to a 2 6

T h e G r e e k s e e m s a m b i g u o u s h e r e . It c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d as a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r o a s t i n g of t h e s a c r e d a n i m a l s , b u t also as a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e u s e of t h e s a n c t u a r i e s of t h e s a c r e d a n i m a l s as k i t c h e n s b y t h e H y k s o s a n d lepers. I n a n y case, t h e sacri­ lege b y t h e H y k s o s a n d lepers is o b v i o u s . M a n e t h o (righdy) states t h a t O s a r s i p h derives from t h e n a m e of t h e g o d Osiris, b u t t h a t explains o n l y t h e first p a r t of t h e n a m e . T h e s e c o n d p a r t (-siph) m a y d e r i v e from t h e n a m e S e p a , a deity in t h e s h a p e of a c e n t i p e d e w o r s h i p p e d i n a n d n e a r Heliopolis, see H . B o n n e t , Reallexikon, 6 9 8 - 6 9 9 ; G . M u s s i e s , " S o m e N o t e s o n t h e N a m e of S a r a p i s , " Hommages a Maarten J. Vermaseren ( E P R O 6 8 ; L e i d e n : 1978) 8 2 1 8 3 2 ; Idem, " T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o j u d a i c a of S a r a p i s , " Studies in Hellenistic Religions (ed. M . J . V e r m a s e r e n ; E P R O 78; Leiden: 1979) 2 0 9 - 2 1 2 ; P. W . V a n d e r H o r s t , Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. The Fragments Collected and Translated with Explanatory JVbto ( E P R O 1 0 1 ; L e i d e n : 1984; 1987 ) 5 0 . T h e n a m e O s i r i s - S e p a is f o u n d in c h . 142 2 7

2

280

3

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

considerable extent to the data in two other anti-Jewish libels. First, there is a shorter passage attributed to Chaeremon (CA 1.288-292), an Egyptian priest and Stoic philosopher of the first century C E , which is much shorter than Manetho's legend. Although Josephus emphasizes that this text differs in several details from Manetho's, their basic messages are nonetheless very similar, especially the nar­ rative thread of the legends. Chaeremon's version corresponds to a portion of Manetho's found at CA 2.228-251 and the correspond­ ence of detail and narrative indicates that a c o m m o n tradition served as a basis of both legends. In comparison with Manetho's version, Chaeremon's story looks like a historicization of the famous Osiris-myth. This myth contains the following important elements: the killing of Osiris by Seth-Typhon, the flight of Isis while pregnant with Horus, or the flight of Isis and her child before Seth-Typhon, and the battle between Seth-Typhon and the grown-up Horus w h o avenges his father's death. According to Chaeremon's fragment, the Jews originated from defiled Egyp­ tians. These impure Egyptians, who are also called Jews (cf. CA 1.292: eK8icoi;ai xohq lovdaiovq), associated themselves with 380,000 persons w h o were left at Pelusium by pharaoh Amenophis and were not allowed to enter Egypt. Although a reference to Seth-Typhon is 28

29

30

31

32

of t h e Book of Dead; see, e.g., E . H o r n u n g , Das Totenbuch der Ägypter ( Z ü r i c h - M ü n c h e n : 1979) 2 7 4 . W e o w e this r e f e r e n c e to D r . H . M i l d e , A m s t e r d a m . S t e r n , Authors I, 4 1 7 - 4 2 1 . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s t h e s u p p o s e d origin from E g y p t briefly in his refutation of A p i o n in 2 . 1 2 2 . P . W . v a n d e r H o r s t , " C h a e r e m o n . E g y p t i s c h p r i e s t e r e n antisemitisch Stoicijn uit d e tijd v a n h e t N i e u w e T e s t a m e n t , " NedTTs 3 5 (1981) 2 6 5 - 2 7 2 . Idem, Chaeremon, w i t h extensive references t o e a r l i e r p u b l i c a t i o n s . O n CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 2 9 2 ( F r a g m . 1 of C h a e r e m o n ) , see especially p p . 4 9 - 5 1 , 8 4 . T h e m o t i v e for p h a r a o h A m e n o p h i s ' decision, for i n s t a n c e , is t h e a p p e a r a n c e of Isis in a d r e a m (cf. a b o v e ) a n d n o t a p r o p h e c y of a sage; t h e n a m e of t h e sage is P h r i t i b a u t e s i n s t e a d of A m e n o p h i s . T h e r e is n o link b e t w e e n t h e i m p u r e E g y p ­ t i a n s a n d t h e H y k s o s , a n d J o s e p h is m e n t i o n e d besides M o s e s . Cf. retellings of t h e m y t h in P l u t a r c h , De hide 8; 1 2 - 2 1 , a n d D i o d o r u s Siculus 1 . 2 1 - 2 2 , 8 8 . T h e e l e m e n t of t h e p u r s u i t of Isis b y S e t h o c c u r s a l r e a d y in E g y p t i a n texts f r o m t h e s e c o n d m i l l e n n i u m B C E ; see t h e Hymn of Amen-Mose ( a b o u t 1400 B C E ) ; Spell 148 in A. d e B u c k , The Egyptian Coffin Texts (2 vols.; T h e University of C h i c a g o O r i e n t a l Institute P u b l i c a t i o n s 4 9 ; C h i c a g o : 1938) 2 0 9 - 2 2 6 ; for a translation a n d f u r t h e r references, see R . O . F a u l k n e r , The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, vol. I, (3 vols.; W a r m i n s t e r : 1973) 1 2 5 - 1 2 7 . W e o w e this r e f e r e n c e t o D r . H . M i l d e , A m s t e r d a m . L a t e r texts w i t h t h e m o t i f a r e H e r o d o t u s , Hist. 2 . 1 5 6 , a n d t h e so-called Metternichstele (from 3 7 8 - 3 6 0 B C E ) . T h e s e texts a r e discussed in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m y t h o l o g i c a l b a c k g r o u n d of R e v . 12 b y A. Y a r b r o Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation ( H a r v a r d D i s s e r t a t i o n s in R e l i g i o n 9; M i s s o u l a (Mont.): 1975) 6 2 - 6 3 . Cf. t h e c o m m e n t a r y b y S t e r n , Authors I, 4 2 1 : " T h e p e o p l e expelled from E g y p t 2 8

2 9

3 0

31

3 2

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

281

missing in this passage, the similarity of the patterns of the narrative in Chaeremon's and Manetho's passages strongly suggests that CA 1.288-292 is also very much influenced by traditions concerning SethTyphon. This implies that the association of the Jews with SethTyphon is presupposed in this libel as well. The assumption that Chaeremon's version presents a historicization of mythic traditions linked to Seth-Typhon helps us to explain rather easily both the similarities in details as well as most of the differences between Chaeremon's and Manetho's accounts. After the invasion by the defiled Egyptians and their allies, the pharaoh fled to Ethio­ pia. At this point in the narrative, Chaeremon adds to Manetho's story that the pharaoh's wife, w h o was pregnant, was left behind. She concealed herself in caverns and gave birth to a son (1.292). This corresponds to the flight of Isis and Horus before Seth-Typhon. Moreover, in Chaeremon's version it is not Amenophis but the pharaoh's son Ramesses w h o drove the rebels out of Egypt into Syria and brought home his father. Amenophis' role is similar to that of Osiris in the myth, and his son plays the part of the royal god Horus. O n e detail in Josephus' refutation of Chaeremon, which seems un­ important at a first glance, catches the eye in the light of the SethTyphon traditions. Josephus states in 1.300 that Ramesses, the son of Amenophis, "was born in a cave after his father's death, and subsequendy defeated the J e w s " . Thackeray's note in the Loeb edition that this is merely "a careless contradiction of Chaeremon's state­ ment (§ 292)" is unsatisfactory, since this detail fits in exacdy with the conflict myth of Horus and Seth-Typhon. Horus is born after 33

34

a r e labelled J e w s w i t h o u t a n y e x p l a n a t i o n . W e r e t h e J e w s , a c c o r d i n g to C h a e r e m o n , identical w i t h b o t h t h e defiled p e o p l e a n d w i t h t h o s e from t h e b o r d e r ? " T h e story a t t r i b u t e d to L y s i m a c h u s c o n c e r n i n g p h a r a o h B o c c h o r i s ( 1 . 3 0 4 - 3 1 1 ) m a k e s a simi­ lar claim. T h e o r a c l e of A m m o n advises t o purify t h e E g y p t i a n t e m p l e s of l e p e r s a n d p e o p l e afflicted w i t h scurvy, as well as w i t h o t h e r diseases. P e o p l e of t h e first t w o categories a r e p u t in strips of l e a d a n d s u n k in t h e sea (which r e m i n d s o n e of a detail in P l u t a r c h ' s f a m o u s v e r s i o n of t h e Osiris m y t h : after T y p h o n h a s m a d e Osiris to e n t e r t h e coffin h e fastens it w i t h m o l t e n l e a d a n d p u s h e s it i n t o t h e N i l e , 14 Mor. 356E), t h e o t h e r s (1.307 a m G a p x o i ) w e r e d r i v e n i n t o t h e w i l d e r n e s s . M o s e s b r o u g h t t h e m t o J u d a e a , w h e r e t h e y f o u n d e d t h e i r city H i e r o s y l a ( 1 . 3 1 0 - 3 1 1 ) . Cf. 1.311: " T h i s t o w n w a s called H i e r o s y l a ('IepocruAxx) b e c a u s e of t h e i r sacrilegious p r o p e n s i t i e s " . A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' refutation L y s i m a c h u s u s e d t h e p h r a s e 6 Xabq TCDV 'Io\)8a{cov, b u t these w o r d s a r e missing in his r e n d e r i n g of L y s i m a c h u s . ohxoc, 8e 7tercoir|Kev avxbv \izxa rnv xov naxpbc, XEXEX>XT\V ev CK\\hxi(d n v i yeyevrmevov m i \LEXOL xavxa vuccovxa \iaxy[ Kai xovq 'Iao5a(o\>£ eiq 2/upiav e^etaxvvovia . . . (CA 1.300). H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y , Josephus I. The Life. Contra Apionem ( C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press: 1926) 2 8 4 . 3 3

3 4

282

5

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

the death of his father at the hands of Seth-Typhon and takes up the fight against his antagonist when he has grown up (cf. CA 1.292 dv8p(o0evxa concerning Ramesses). Chaeremon very probably has associated the Jews with Seth-Typhon and may have adapted his o w n source in order to enhance its similarity with the combat myth of Seth-Typhon, although he failed to d o this consistendy. Finally, two other details incidental to the narrative but crucial for unravelling the associations which fuel these texts confirm this assumption: first, reference is made to the revelation of Isis, a key figure in the myths concerning Osiris, Horus and Seth-Typhon, and, second, Joseph, who is presented as the second leader of the impure people alongside Moses, is given the Egyptian name Peteseph (neteaf|(p, CA 1.290), possibly a corruption of Peteseth meaning "The gift of Seth". In any case, this evidence makes it clear that the impure Egyptians and Pelusians in their role as ancestors of the Jews were associated with Seth-Typhon. A n anti-Jewish Egyptian prophecy preserved o n a papyrus and dated to the e n d of the second or the third century C E by palaeographical criteria provides further support for understanding Manetho's and Chaeremon's libels as a (narrative) complex of legendary associations deeply rooted in Egyptian cultural history and political rhetoric. This prophecy of calamity in Egypt shares a pattern of events with these libels about the origin of the Jews (CPJ 520 = PSI 8.982). This affinity is not merely associative or general. T h e last 35

36

37

38

39

3 5

A n o t h e r possibility is t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s a d a p t e d C h a e r e m o n ' s p h r a s i n g i n o r ­ d e r t o m a k e t h e link w i t h S e t h - T y p h o n less o b v i o u s , b u t t r a n s m i t t e d t h e m o r e origi­ n a l v e r s i o n a c c i d e n t a l l y i n h i s refutation. T . H o p f n e r , Plutarch fiber Isis und Osiris ( 2 vols.; P r a g u e : 1 9 4 1 ) 1 4 5 ; L . T r o i a n i , Commento storico al "Contro Apione" di Giuseppe, I n t r o d u z i o n e , c o m m e n t o s t o r i c o , t r a d u z i o n e e indici (Biblioteca degli studi classici e orientali 9 ; Pisa: 1 9 7 7 ) 1 3 4 ; S t e r n , Authors I, 4 2 1 . Cf. M o s e s ' E g y p t i a n n a m e TIGI0EV i n t h e s a m e p a s s a g e . G . Mussies, followed b y V a n d e r H o r s t , Chaeremon, 4 9 - 5 0 , states t h a t P e t e s e p h c a n best b e e x ­ p l a i n e d a s d e r i v i n g f r o m t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f P e t e - ( " t h e o n e given b y " ) a n d S e p a ; see n . 2 7 w i t h r e f e r e n c e s . S e e G . Vitelli, Pubblicazioni della Societa Italiana per la ricerca dei papyri greci e latini in Egitto V I I I ( F l o r e n c e : 1 9 2 7 ) 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 ; M . N a g e l , " U n S a m a r i t a i n d a n s l'Arsinoite a u H e siecle a p r e s J . - C , " Chronique d'Egypte 4 9 ( 1 9 7 4 ) 3 6 1 ; M . S t e r n i n CPJ I I I , 1 1 9 . TaXeva (= xdAxnva) AIY\)TI[TO<; c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h similar p h r a s e s i n Sib. Or.; see 3 6

3 7

38

3 . 6 4 8 c o n c e r n i n g E g y p t a n d cf. 3 . 7 3 2 ; 4 . 8 0 , 1 0 5 , 1 4 3 ; 5 . 3 3 6 . 3 9

T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n CA 1 . 2 8 8 - 2 9 2 a n d CPJ 5 2 0 h a v e often b e e n n o t e d ; see M . S t e r n , " A n E g y p t i a n - G r e e k P r o p h e c y a n d t h e T r a d i t i o n a b o u t t h e E x p u l s i o n of t h e J e w s f r o m E g y p t i n t h e H i s t o r y o f C h a e r e m o n , " %on 2 8 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 2 2 3 - 2 2 8 ( H e ­ b r e w ) ; G a g e r , Moses, 1 2 1 n . 1 9 ; S t e r n , Authors I , 4 2 0 ; V a n d e r H o r s t , Chaeremon, 5 0 . S e e t h e r e c e n t discussions o f this text b y D . F r a n k f u r t e r , " L e s t E g y p t ' s C i t y B e

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

283

part of line 4 of this text (] .oiaQeiq- ZKEXQEOVV 'Io\)[ . .) should prob­ ably be completed into a phrase meaning something like "attack the Jews" or "invade J u d a e a " . Such a reading is highly plausible; the text continues with a reference to a group which was expelled from Egypt (e£ 'EYUTCTOU eyPepAriiievoi, line 8) because of the wrath of Isis, an element reminiscent of the defiled Egyptians. This specific information parallels the story of Chaeremon to a considerable degree. According to Chaeremon, the anger of Isis is provoked because of the destruction of her temple (CA 1.289; cf. Manetho's reference to the destruction of the Egyptian temples by the Hyksos in CA 1.76 and by the lepers in CA 1.249, 264; cf. lines 3 and 5 in CPJ 5 2 0 ) , an act which leads to the expulsion of the contaminated Egyptians. T h e fragment seems to foretell that the Jews "will inhabit the land of Helios-Re", that is the land of the Egyptian sun god Re, w h o was the ruler of the cosmos and connected in the royal ideology with H o r u s . T h e correspondences between CPJ 5 2 0 and Chaeremon's story render it very probable that it is the Jews who are intended as the people w h o were expelled from Egypt in CPJ 520 line 8 . This assumption is strengthened by the character­ ization of these persons as "girdle-wearers" (^covocpopoi) in an unpub­ lished fragment of the same text. Frankfurter draws together these 40

41

42

43

44

45

46

D e s e r t e d : R e l i g i o n a n d I d e o l o g y in t h e E g y p t i a n R e s p o n s e t o t h e J e w i s h R e v o l t ( 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 C E ) , " JJS 4 3 (1992) 2 0 3 - 2 2 0 ; a n d G . B o h a k , " C P J I I I , 5 2 0 : T h e E g y p ­ t i a n R e a c t i o n t o O n i a s ' T e m p l e , " JSJ 2 6 (1995) 3 2 - 4 1 . Vitelli, S t e r n a n d o t h e r s c o m p l e t e 'Io\)[8a{oi<;; G . M a n t e u f f e l , " Z u r P r o p h e t i e in P.S.I. V I I I . 9 8 2 , " MIFAO 67 (1934) 1 1 9 - 1 2 4 , r e a d s 'Ioa)[8a{(ov. Possible b u t less p r o b a b l e w o u l d b e 'IoD[8a{cc. T h e v e r b eicpdAAco o r t h e n o u n h$oXx\ o c c u r s several t i m e s in t h e p a s s a g e s o n t h e E g y p t i a n origin of t h e J e w s in CA; see 1.290, 2 9 4 , 2 9 6 , 3 0 6 . F o l l o w i n g t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e text p r o p o s e d b y M a n t e u f f e l , " P r o p h e t i e , " 120, w h i c h is s u p p o r t e d b y L. K o e n e n in his r e v i e w of CPJ in Gnomon 4 0 (1968) 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 , a n d B o h a k , " C P J I I I , 5 2 0 , " 3 3 - 3 4 . Cf. t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e w r a t h o f t h e g o d s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e l e p e r s in E g y p t in CA 1.235, 2 5 6 , 2 5 8 . Cf. also 1.246. T h e s e lines possibly refer t o t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f E g y p t i a n cities a n d t e m p l e s . I n t h e o p i n i o n of F r a n k f u r t e r , " L e s t E g y p t ' s C i t y , " 2 0 8 , M e m p h i s is m e a n t b y t h e reference t o t h e d e s e r t e d city in line 5 . Cf. also t h e r e f e r e n c e t o lawless b e h a v i o u r (napdvotioi, line 7). S e e F r a n k f u r t e r , " L e s t E g y p t ' s C i t y , " 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 . O n t h e " K i n g f r o m t h e s u n " in t h e Potter's Oracle a n d Sib. Or. 3 . 6 5 2 - 6 5 6 , see J . J . C o l l i n s , " T h e Sibyl a n d t h e P o t t e r : Political P r o p a g a n d a in P t o l e m a i c E g y p t , " Religious Propaganda and Missionary Compe­ tition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgji, (eds. L. B o r m a n n ; K . del T r e d i c i ; A. S t a n d h a r t i n g e r ; L e i d e n - N e w Y o r k - K o l n : 1994) 5 7 - 7 9 . W i t h S t e r n , CPJ I I I , 1 2 1 ; B o h a k , " C P J I I I , 5 2 0 , " 3 5 . Frankfurter, "Lest Egypt's City," 209 n. 32. 4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

284

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSCH

various strands in his discussion of this fragment: "A second fragment of the unpublished Oxyrhynchus papyrus of the anti-Jewish prophecy mentions the £covo
48

2.4. These patterns described above are attested to by several additional details which are notably present in each of these texts. O n e of the accusations which returns time and again in Contra Apionem is that the Jews were said to have been worshippers of the ass. A 49

4 7

T h e origin of this e n i g m a t i c p h r a s e is n o t clear. B o h a k , " C P J I I I , 5 2 0 , " 3 8 n . 2 3 , suggests t h a t t h e p h r a s e refers t o t h e J e w i s h priests of O n i a s ' t e m p l e in L e o n t o p o l i s o r H e l i o p o l i s , " w h o w o r e t h e i r priestly belts in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h E x . 2 8 . 4 , 3 9 ; 2 9 . 9 etc.!," b u t this is u n c o n v i n c i n g , since it d o e s n o t e x p l a i n t h e use in t h e Potter's Oracle. F . D u n a n d , " L ' o r a c l e d u p o t i e r et la f o r m a t i o n d e l ' a p o c a l y p t i q u e e n E g y p t e , " Etudes de l'histoire des religions 3 (1977) 4 1 - 6 7 , esp. 6 1 , a s s u m e s t h a t t h e u p p e r class of t h e G r e e k citizens of A l e x a n d r i a is m e a n t b y t h e p h r a s e in t h e Potter's Oracle. T h i s m a y b e t r u e b u t d o e s n o t e x p l a i n t h e o r i g i n of t h e p h r a s e . W . Clarysse, " T h e C i t y of t h e G i r d l e - W e a r e r s a n d a N e w D e m o t i c D o c u m e n t , " Enchoria. Zeitschrift fur Demotistik und Koptologie 18 (1991) 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 , p r o p o s e s t o r e a d t h e p h r a s e snwpwrs in P . L o n d . d e . 1 0 2 2 3 (early s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C E ) 1. 4 as a D e m o t i c t r a n s c r i p t i o n of Ç(ûvo(p6poç, w h i c h implies t h a t t h e p a p y r u s refers t o t h e t o m b of t h e girdle-wearer. C l a r y s s e t h i n k s t h a t t h e Çcovocpopoç m e a n s t h a t t h e d e c e a s e d w a s a m e m b e r of t h e a r m y o r t h e police force. T h e close c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n CPJ 5 2 0 a n d t h e Oracle of the Potter a r e c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d a n d w e r e a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t b y Vitelli, Pubblicazioni. J . H a l é v y , " L e culte d ' u n e tête d ' â n e , " RevSém 11 (1903) 1 5 4 - 1 6 4 ; Idem, " L a visite d ' A p o l l o n a u t e m p l e juif," RevSém 18 (1910) 2 1 8 - 2 2 2 ; E . B i c k e r m a n n , " R i t u a l m o r d u n d Eselskult," MGWJ 71 N S 3 5 (1927) 1 7 1 - 1 8 7 a n d 2 5 5 - 2 6 4 ; A. J a c o b y , " D e r a n g e b l i c h e Eselskult d e r J u d e n u n d C h r i s t e n , " ARW 2 5 (1927) 2 6 5 - 2 8 2 ; L. V i s c h e r , " L e p r é t e n d u 'culte d e l ' â n e ' d a n s l'Église p r i m i t i v e , " RHR 70 (1951) 1 4 - 3 5 ; W . S p e y e r , " Z u d e n V o r w ü r f e n d e r H e i d e n g e g e n die C h r i s t e n , " JAC 6 (1963) 1 2 9 - 1 3 6 , esp. 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 ; F e l d m a n , Jew, 127, 1 4 5 - 1 4 6 , 4 9 9 - 5 0 1 . B. H . Stricker, " A s i n a r i i I , " OMRO 4 6 (1965) 5 2 - 7 5 , s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e a c c u s a t i o n w a s b a s e d o n t h e a c t u a l v e n e r a t i o n of t h e ass b y J e w s (sic!) a n d a r g u e s , a m o n g o t h e r things, t h a t references t o asses in L X X a r e systematically o m i t t e d . E v e n if this w o u l d b e t h e 4 8

4 9

285

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

similar accusation is referred to in several non-Jewish works, a fact which proves undoubtedly that Josephus did not invent it to demon­ strate the stupidity of his opponents. T h e question arises, however, why the ass was chosen as the favorite animal to ridicule the Jews. The negative attributes associated with the ass, such as its stupidity, ugliness, obstinance and lechery, are obvious, but they do not suffi­ ciently account for the harsh conclusions which are drawn in some of the passages in question after the link between the Jews and the ass has been established. It is not coincidental that the accusation of the veneration of the ass by the Jews is sometimes accompanied by remarks which point to Seth-Typhon as the figure which forms the background of these traditions (see also 2.5). Read in the light of its associations with Seth-Typhon, the specific nature of this accusation becomes clear. The accusation of Jewish worship of the ass is attributed to Apion himself (2.79-80): "Within this sanctuary (the temple of Jerusalem) Apion has the effrontery to assert that the Jews kept an ass's head (asini caput collocasse), worshipping that animal and deeming it worthy of the deepest reverence (et eum colere ac dignum facere tarda religione)..." The golden ass's head was said to have been discovered by Antiochus Epiphanes. T h e reference to the veneration of the ass returns in a passage attributed to the historian Damocritus (De Iudaeis, apud Suda s.v. A a j i o K p u o q ) , where the accusation of ass veneration ( c m X p u a f j v ovou Ke<paA,f|V 7cpoaeKt>vouv) is combined with that of the ritual slaughter of a foreigner by the Jews (cf. CA 2 . 8 9 - 9 6 attributed to Apion). Diodorus Siculus, who wrote in the first century BCE, offers another source with the same accusation at 3 4 - 3 5 . 1 . 1 - 5 . H e links Jewish religion to the veneration of the ass in a passage which offers a legitimization of the acts of Antiochus IV against Jerusalem ( 3 4 3 5 . 1 . 1 - 5 ) . Antiochus' friends advised him to wipe out the Jewish people completely (34-35.1.1). Their arguments contain a reference to the charge that impure 50

51

5 2

53

54

case, it is far-fetched t o c o n s i d e r this as a n implicit confession of t h e J e w s t h a t t h e y v e n e r a t e d t h e ass. F. O l c k , " E s e l , " PW 1. R e i h e V I , 6 3 3 - 6 3 6 ; Strieker, "Asinarii I . " S t e r n , Authors I, 4 0 9 - 4 1 0 . F o r text a n d c o m m e n t a r y , see S t e r n , Authors I, 5 3 0 - 5 3 1 . It is n o t k n o w n w h e n D a m o c r i t u s lived. S t e r n , Authors-!, 1 8 1 - 1 8 5 . T h e h y p o t h e s i s of B i c k e r m a n n , " R i t u a l m o r d , " 2 6 0 , a n d o t h e r s t h a t this story ultimately d e r i v e d from P o s e i d o n i u s b e c a u s e of his s u p p o s e d l y relatively positive 5 0

51

5 2

5 3

5 4

5

286

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

Egyptians were the ancestors of the Jewish people (Diodorus 34.1-2). As we have argued above, the familiar valence of this accusation is part and parcel of the traditions concerning Seth-Typhon. Antiochus disregarded the counsel of his friends, but decided to stop Jewish religion after his visit to the holy of holiest of the temple. In an attempt to justify Antiochus' measures, Diodorus focuses upon what Antiochus discovered after having entered the temple's innermost sanctuary: "Finding there a marble statue of a heavily bearded man seated on an ass (Koc6r|p,£vov in ovou), with a book in his hands, he supposed it to be an image of Moses, the founder of Jerusalem and organizer of the nation, the man, moreover, w h o had ordained for the Jews their misanthropic and lawless customs. And since Antiochus was shocked by such hatred directed against all mankind, he had set himself to break down their traditional practices." (34-35.1.3). A careful reading of this passage leads to the conclusion that only the ass can have created the shock to Antiochus. A man with a heavy beard and a book may be strange but not offensive. T h e ass triggers the negative associations with the presumed antisocial and lawless behaviour of the Jews. Diodorus merely reports the story without even providing any details concerning the Jews' legendary veneration of the ass. This fact implies that the passage had a well-known traditional background. Diodorus did spend part of his life in Alexandria (17.52), which may indicate that the legend does indeed have an Egyptian origin. 55

56

T h e oldest version of the libel about the veneration of the ass by the Jews transmitted in Contra Apionem is attributed to Mnaseas of Patara in Lycia, w h o lived in the second century B C E (CA 2 . 1 1 2 114). According to this curious legend, a certain Zabidos, an Idumean from D o r a (Adora, cf. below), duped the Jews of Jerusalem by 57

58

a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e J e w s is refuted b y G a g e r , Moses, 126, b u t c o n s i d e r e d plausible b y S t e r n , Authors I, 184. E\)pû)v ôè ev o u i © ÀiOivov ayaAiLcx àvôpoç ßaGviccoycovoc mBfmevov ère' ÖVOD, jiexà Xeîpaç ë'xov ßißÄiov, xovxo |ièv imetaxße Mcovaetoç eivai xo\) Kxiaavxoç xà Iepoa6ÀA)|ia Kai ox>OTr\oa\L£vov xö ëGvoç, rcpoç Ôè xowoiç vo(io6exr|oavxoç xà paaavOpcma Kai Tcapàvo^ia ëôr| xoîç 'IovÔaioiç- aùxoç ôè axDyr|aaç XTJV niaav0pco7uav rcàvxcov éOvcov è
f

5 6

5 7

5 8

287

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

promising them to deliver up to them Apollo, the god of his city, if they would leave the temple. T h e naive Jews let him have his way which enabled him to steal the golden head of the pack-ass (icdvGcov) which stood in the temple and which may be understood to be the cult statue. This tradition is, of course, very unlikely, because the Jews would never have allowed gentiles to enter the temple (cf. e.g. 2 Mace. 3). Regardless of its other associations, the suggestion that the Jewish people venerated the ass certainly expresses the unequivocally antiJewish idea that the Jewish people could be associated with the char­ acteristics of the ass, its ugliness, its stubbornness, its unpleasant voice, and last but not least its lewdness. Bickermann rejected the hypoth­ esis that the accusation proceded from the association of the Lord with Seth-Typhon. H e emphasized that the oldest version of the accusation of the veneration of the ass by the Jews focuses on the golden head of the ass. T h e story about the stealing of the head of the ass by Zabidus would contain the oldest stratum of the tradition which would have circulated already in Idumea in the fifth and fourth century B C E . T h e arguments for his hypothesis are, however, not convincing, as several scholars have pointed out. These vaguer associations do not reflect the whole story of this anti-Jewish libel. T h e prominent feature of the ass remains unex­ plained in Bickermann's hypothesis, while this element can be under­ stood very well in connection with traditions about Seth-Typhon. Furthermore, most of the passages in which the accusation of the veneration of the ass appears are attributed to authors with an Egyp­ tian background. It seems, therefore, more probable that Mnaseas' 59

60

61

62

n a m e is given as "AÔcopa in J o s e p h u s , Ant. 13.207, 2 5 7 , 3 9 6 a n d 14.88 a n d as 'AOcopaiji in Ant. 8.246. Cf. B i c k e r m a n n , " R i t u a l m o r d , " 2 6 2 . Bickermann, "Ritualmord," 256. B i c k e r m a n n , " R i t u a l m o r d , " 2 6 4 . Cf. H a l é v y , L e " c u l t e , " w h o s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e l e g e n d o r i g i n a t e d in Palestine a n d goes b a c k to t h e a c t u a l v e n e r a t i o n of t h e ass at Sichern. J a c o b y , "Eselskult," e s p . p p . 2 8 1 - 2 8 2 ; L. Finkelstein, " P r e - M a c c a b e a n D o c u ­ m e n t s in t h e P a s s o v e r H a g g a d a , " HTR 3 6 (1943) 1-38, e s p . p p . 2 4 - 2 8 ; V i s c h e r , "culte d e l ' â n e ; " V . T c h e r i k o v e r , Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews ( N e w Y o r k : 1979) 3 6 5 - 3 6 6 ; S t e r n , Authors I, 9 8 ; V a n d e r H o r s t , " C h a e r e m o n , " 2 6 5 - 2 7 2 , e s p . 2 7 1 ; G a g e r , Moses, 116 a n d 132; V a n d e r H o r s t , Chaeremon, 5 0 w i t h f u r t h e r references; F e l d m a n , Jew, 4 9 9 - 5 0 1 . Y o y o t t e , " E g y p t e , " 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 , states t h a t t h e ass goes b a c k to S e t h - T y p h o n a n d offers m a n y parallels from E g y p t i a n s o u r c e s t o e l e m e n t s of t h e legend about the i m p u r e Egyptians. Even the passage attributed to M n a s e a s was transmitted by Apion according to CA 2 . 1 1 2 , 115. 5 9

6 0

61

6 2

288

3

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

legend derives from an Idumean variant of a tradition which ulti­ mately originated in Egypt. Stern assumes that this tradition derives from an Egyptian source and that it reflects tensions between Jews and Idumeans both of w h o m emigrated to Egypt in the third and second century BCE. T h e legend can also be understood as an ex­ pression of Idumean frustration stemming from Jewish domination of Idumea in the second century BCE. T h e Idumeans were forced by J o h n Hyrcanus to circumcise themselves and observe Jewish laws, after their cities Adora and Marissa were conquered, and at this time of crisis they may have taken over the familiar anti-Jewish libel current in Egyptian circles. 63

64

2.5. T h e fourth criterion for the identification of the presence of an ancient mythological tradition in Contra Apionem implies that ele­ ments which may appear isolated in one of the passages with an anti-Jewish accusation belong to a cluster of motifs connected with the key figure of such a tradition. This may be apparent from one of the relevant passages in Contra Apionem or from a parallel text outside the work. In connection with the alleged Jewish veneration of the ass, a short but very clear passage of Plutarch indicates the existence of such a cluster of motifs in connection with Seth-Typhon. The expli­ cit reference to Seth-Typhon implies that we can be fairly sure that the passages with the accusation that the Jews worshipped the ass ultimately derive from Graeco-Egyptian traditions about the conflict myth of the royal god Horus and his evil opponent Seth-Typhon. In a passage belonging to his large work on the myth of Osiris Plutarch notes combined references to Seth-Typhon and to the ass. These references are clearly applied to the Jews and connected with the libel of the Egyptian origin of the Jews. T h e tradition recalled by Plutarch depicts how Typhon fled from Egypt on an ass for seven days and begot two sons, Jerusalem and Judah: "But those who re­ late that Typhon's flight from the battle [the fight with Horus] was 65

6 3

J o s e p h u s , Ant. 1 3 . 2 5 7 ; Bell. 1.63. See E . S c h u r e r , The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135) I, A N e w English V e r s i o n R e v i s e d (eds. G . V e r m e s , F . M i l l a r ; E d i n b u r g h : 1973) 2 0 7 . T h i s w o u l d i m p l y t h a t t h e a t t r i b u t i o n of t h e story t o M n a s e a s m a y o r i g i n a t e f r o m a l a t e r p e r i o d . T h e r e a r e several o t h e r s o u r c e s w h i c h c o n t a i n this s a m e a c c u s a t i o n w h i c h m a y likewise h a v e a d o p t e d this t r a d i t i o n for t h e i r o w n p u r p o s e s (for e x a m p l e , T a c i t u s , Hist. 5 . 2 - 4 ; P l u t a r c h , Quaestiones Conv. 4.5.2 [= Mor. 6 7 0 D ] ; T e r t u l l i a n , Apologeticum 16.2). W i t h S t e r n , Authors I, 9 8 . 6 4

6 5

289

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

made on the back of an ass (en'ovou) and lasted for seven days, and that after he had made his escape, he became the father of sons, Hierosolymus and Judaeus, are manifestly, as the very names show, attempting to drag Jewish traditions into legend" (De hide et Osiride 31; = Mor. 3 6 3 C - D ; transl. Babbitt; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.2). Plutarch's commentary is clear; according to his anonymous sources, Israel's exodus and settlement in the holy land are described in terms of the historicization of a myth. This application of the conflict myth of Horus and Seth-Typhon fuses all of the elements we have dis­ cussed above. 66

2.6. The result of our investigation so far is that in Egypt the Jews were stereotypically depicted as worshippers of Seth-Typhon, the enemy of the gods, in sources dating anywhere from the third cen­ tury BCE to the first or even second century CE. What are the consequences of this widespread anti-Jewish propaganda? T h e appli­ cation of the conflict myth of Horus and Seth-Typhon to the Jews seems to have an obvious implication: the Jews are identified as for­ eigners who should be removed from Egypt in order to safeguard Egyptian or Graeco-Egyptian society. T h e y were considered scape­ goats who had to be driven away or even be eliminated so that the forces of evil were safely carried across the Egyptian border. T h e function of this myth can easily be demonstrated by looking at several other historicizations of the myth. Typhonic characterizations were rather c o m m o n in Egypt in the Persian and Greek periods. They derive from the identification of the Egyptian god Seth with the giant T y p h o n from Greek mythol­ ogy. Typhon-Typhoeus is the name of an anti-hero w h o is depicted as a monster or dragon. H e fights against the Olympic gods and tries to overthrow the rule of Zeus. H e is an enemy of humans as well and represents the forces of chaos. In a rationalized version of the myth Diodorus Siculus states that Zeus eliminated T y p h o n be­ cause of his contempt of the gods and the laws (5.71). Already in the fifth century, Herodotus identifies Typhon with the Egyptian god Seth (2.144, 156; 3.5), who had initially been a respectable royal god. In 67

68

6 6

See further S t e r n , Authors I, 5 6 3 . F o r references, see n n . 2, 3 , 4 a n d 2 2 . O r i g e n e s , Contra Celsum 6.42, a l r e a d y refers t o P h e r e c y d e s for this identification; see W . K r a n z , " V o r s o k r a t i s c h e s I , " Hermes 6 9 (1934) 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 . 6 7

6 8

290

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSCH

Egyptian mythology the conflict between Horus and Seth is a promi­ nent story, a dramatic battle between two royal gods which is to be repeated continuously throughout history. T h e influence of the Osiris myth along with foreign threats to Egypt in the first millennium BCE transformed the role of Seth into the quintessential enemy of the other deities. In this new role he attacks the deities, threatens their cults and destroys their temples. This explains why Horus not only defeats but also kills Seth in later versions of the myth, a story which is, for example, depicted on the walls of temples. Seth develops into a completely negative figure, resembling the Typhon of Greek mythology. In Hellenized Egypt, Seth-Typhon becomes the personifi­ cation of chaos in nature and society. Consequently this destructive god also came to be viewed as the god of foreigners; it is this aspect of Seth-Typhon which is most relevant to our case. Mythic traditions about Seth-Typhon were used to interpret po­ litical events. W e can refer here to illuminating studies by Ludwig K o e n e n and others. O n e of the groups w h o eagerly made use of the conflict myth of Horus and Seth-Typhon were the Ptolemaic kings. T h e y not only took over the royal ideology from the pharaohs by presenting themselves as the incarnation of Horus, but also iden­ tified their enemies with Horus' opponent, Seth-Typhon. The struggle between Ptolemies and indigenous rebels like Hurgonaphor, Chaonnophris, Dionysius Petosarapis and Harsiesis was depicted in the terms of the famous conflict myth. Texts suggest that the Ptolemaic king triumphs like Horus, who revenged the death of his father Osiris 69

70

71

72

73

74

6 9

F o r i n s t a n c e o n t h e walls of t h e t e m p l e of H o r u s a t Edfu, see H . F a i r m a n , The Triumph of Horus: An Ancient Egyptian Sacred Drama ( L o n d o n : 1974). Cf. r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of H o r u s w h o kills S e t h d e p i c t e d as a c r o c o d i l e o r h i p p o p o t a m u s , W . B a r t a , " H o r u s v o n E d f u , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie I I I , 3 4 - 3 5 ; B . A l t e n m ü l l e r , " H o r u s , d e r H e r r d e r H a r p u n i e r s t ä t t e , " Lexikon der Ägyptologie I I I , 3 6 - 3 7 . T h i s i m a g e r y w a s t r a n s f e r r e d to depictions of H a d r i a n o n coins, see A. C . Levi, " H a d r i a n as K i n g of Egypt," The Numis­ matic Chronicle 6. ser. 8 (1948) 3 0 - 3 8 . F o r references, see T e V e l d e , Seth, 1 0 9 - 1 5 1 . S e e v a n H e n t e n , " A n t i o c h u s I V " w i t h references; Idem, " D r a g o n M y t h a n d I m p e r i a l I d e o l o g y in R e v e l a t i o n 12 a n d 1 3 " , Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (ed. E. L o v e r i n g ; A t l a n t a : 1994) 4 9 6 - 5 1 5 . T h i s is a r g u e d persuasively b y L. K o e n e n "Geoioiv exOpoq. E i n e i n h e i m i s c h e r G e g e n k ö n i g in Ä g y p t e n ( 1 3 2 / 1 ) , " Chronique d'Egypte 3 4 (1959) 1 0 3 - 1 1 9 , esp. 109. Idem, " D i e A d a p t a t i o n ä g y p t i s c h e r K ö n i g s i d e o l o g i e a m P t o l e m ä e r h o f , " Egypt and the Hellenistic World, P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l o q u i u m L e u v e n — 2 4 - 2 6 M a y 1982 (eds. E . V a n ' t D a c k , P . v a n Dessel & W . v a n G u c h t ; S t u d i a Hellenistica 2 7 ; L e u v e n : 1983) 1 4 3 - 1 9 0 . Cf. K o e n e n , "Geoiciv exGpoq," 1 0 8 - 1 1 1 . Cf. D i o d o r u s Siculus 1.21. 7 0

71

7 2

;

7 3

7 4

291

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS 75

on the violent and ungodly (aaeßric) Seth-Typhon. There are indications that the triumph of the gods over Seth-Typhon was celebrated ritually during the coronation ceremony of the Ptolemaic king. Another political application of the myth concerns the military conflicts between Ptolemies and Seleucids. T h e famous stele on which the batde of Raphia (217 BCE) was commemorated depicts Ptolemy IV Philopator on horseback killing an enemy kneeling before him, perhaps to be identified with Antiochus III himself. T h e text shows that Ptolemy identified himself with Horus and his foreign enemy with Seth-Typhon in accordance with the old royal ideology: "Die unter seinen Feinden, die in dieser Schlacht bis in seine Nähe vordrangen, die tötete er vor sich, wie Harsiesis [= Horus, son of Isis] vordem seine Feinde geschlachtet hat. Er setzte Antiochos in Schrecken, (er) warf Diadem und seinen Mantel weg. M a n floh mit seiner Frau, indem nur wenige bei ihm blieben, in elender, verächtlicher Weise nach der Niederlage . . . (Demotic version lines 1 1 - 1 3 ; transi. Spiegelberg; cf. lines 32, 3 5 - 3 6 and 4 1 ) . The multipurpose propagandist^ use of the Seth-Typhon traditions appears also from indigenous sources. T h e same associations are found, this time, however, with a reversal of roles. T h e Ptolemaic king and the Greeks are associated with the evil Seth-Typhon; and the leader of the indigenous rebels is linked to the god Horus, w h o triumphs over evil and restores order in Egypt. This application of the royal ideology is also present in the Oracle of the Potter, which probably dates from 1 3 0 - 1 1 6 B C E . T h e Oracle predicts that the 76

77

78

79

80

81

7 5

R o s e t t a s t o n e , G r e e k v e r s i o n (OGIS 90) lines 9 - 1 0 , 2 6 - 2 8 . K o e n e n , "Geoîaiv èxGpoç," 1 0 8 - 1 1 1 . Nigidius Figulus, S c h o l . G e r m . (ed. S w o b o d a , 1964) 1 2 3 : Typhon interficitur in templo Aegypti Memphi, ubi mos fiiit solio regio decorari reges, quae regna ineunt. F o r a n edition a n d a c o m m e n t a r y , see H . - J . T h i s s e n , Studien zum Raphiadekret (Beiträge z u r klassischen Philologie 2 3 ; M e i s e n h e i m a m G l a n : 1966). T h i s s e n , Studien 7 0 w i t h illustrations 1 a n d 2. Cf. t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e p i c t u r e o n t h e stele in t h e D e m o t i c v e r s i o n , lines 3 5 - 3 6 . T h i s s e n , Studien, 5 3 - 5 6 , 6 7 - 6 9 a n d 7 1 - 7 3 . C . P r é a u x , "Esquisse d ' u n e histoire d e s révolutions é g y p t i e n n e s sous les L a g i d e s , " Chronique d'Egypte 11 (1936) 5 2 2 - 5 5 2 ; K o e n e n , "Geoîciv éxGpoç;" F . Ü b e l , "TAPAXH TON AirvriTIQN. E i n J e n a e r P a p y r u s z e u g n i s d e r n a t i o n a l e n U n r u h e n O b e r ä g y p t e n s in d e r ersten Hälfte d e s 2. v o r c h r i s t l i c h e n J a h r h u n d e r t s , " APF 17 (1962) 1 4 7 - 1 6 2 ; P. W . P e s t m a n , " H a r m a c h i s et A n c h m a c h i s , d e u x R o i s i n d i g è n e s d u t e m p s d e s P t o l e m é e s , " Chronique d'Egypte 4 0 (1965) 1 5 7 - 1 7 0 ; W . P e r e m a n s , " L e s r é v o l u t i o n s égyptiennes sous les L a g i d e s , " Das ptolemäische Ägypten (ed. H . M a e h l e r & V . M . Strocka; M a i n z : 1978) 3 9 - 5 0 . W . C l a r y s s e , " H u r g o n a p h o r et C h a o n n o p h r i s , les d e r n i e r s p h a r a o n s i n d i g è n e s , " Chronique d'Egypte 5 3 (1978) 2 4 3 - 2 5 3 . O n t h e Oracle of the Potter a n d r e l a t e d texts, see L . K o e n e n , " D i e P r o p h e z e i u n g e n 7 6

77

7 8

7 9

8 0

81

292

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN

ABUSCH

Greeks will meet with disaster and that their ungodly domination of the Egyptians with Alexandria as its malignant centre will be suc­ ceeded by the rule of an indigenous king. T h e Greeks are stereotypically depicted as "Typhonians" (Tucpcovioi, P lines 3, 14, 28, 47; P lines 4, 9, 1 4 - 1 5 , 50) and "Girdle-Wearers". T h e Potter's Oracle and the unpublished fragment of CPJ 520 show that not only rulers but also other people could be characterized as typhonic. T h e association of people with Seth-Typhon could be sig­ nified by the name "Typhonian" or the adjective "typhonic", by a reference to the ass, the animal of Seth-Typhon, or to the color red, the color of Seth-Typhon. People associated with Seth-Typhon de­ served to be defeated, banished and even killed. This is evident from several passages in Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus and is already im­ plied by an Egyptian ritual text from the fourth century B C E . This text consists mainly of curses against Seth, w h o is expelled to the land of the Asians. In the ritual a wooden dummy of Seth is pierced and burned. Passages in Plutarch and Diodorus indicate that certain specific people seem to have fulfilled the role of the dummy of SethT y p h o n in the ritual text. T h e y apparendy would serve as scape­ goats; the evil personified by Seth-Typhon is projected on to them and eliminated along with them. Plutarch, for example, in his work on Isis and Osiris refers to the ridiculing of persons who were asso­ ciated with Seth-Typhon at Coptos: ". . . jeering at men of ruddy complexion and throwing an ass down a precipice, as the people 2

82

3

83

84

des T ö p f e r s , " %PE 2 (1968) 1 7 8 - 2 0 9 . F o r n e w r e a d i n g s : Idem, " B e m e r k u n g e n z u m T e x t des T ö p f e r o r a k e l s u n d z u d e m A k a z i e n s y m b o l , " %PE 13 (1974) 3 1 3 - 3 1 9 . F u r t h e r references a r e also given b y S t e r n , Authors I, 6 4 ; F r a n k f u r t e r , " L e s t E g y p t ' s C i t y , " 2 0 9 n . 3 2 ; 2 1 2 n. 4 8 , a n d 2 1 7 n . 6 6 ; V a n H e n t e n , " A n t i o c h u s I V , " 2 3 8 - 2 3 9 . P 4 3 - 4 4 K a i TCDV ^covocpopcov 7toA,(<<;> epT^coGriaeTai ov xporcov E\I{T)} Ka^ivo<<;> " A n d t h e city of t h e g i r d l e - w e a r e r s will b e d e s e r t e d j u s t as m y furnace (was b e i n g e m p t i e d ) " , cf. P lines 3 2 - 3 3 a n d P lines 5 5 - 5 6 . V a n Henten, "Antiochus IV," 236-238. H a t r e d a g a i n s t foreign i n v a d e r s of E g y p t p r o b a b l y f o r m e d t h e i m p e t u s for this text. A t its b e g i n n i n g , S e t h is a l r e a d y d r i v e n a w a y t o t h e l a n d of t h e Asians b y t h e o t h e r g o d s . T h e e n d of t h e text r e a d s : Man spreche die vorangegangenen Worte über eine Figur des Seth als Kriegsgefangener, die aus rotem Wachs gemacht ist, lautend "Jener elende Seth" und man zeichne mit frischer Farbe auf ein neues Papyrusblatt oder (eine Figur aus) Akazienholz oder Hm3-Holz, auf deren Brust ebenso sein Name eingeschnitten ist (lautend:) "Esel". T h i s leaf o r this w o o d e n figure w a s spitted u p o n , p i e r c e d , c u t i n t o p i e c e s a n d b u r n e d . T h e t e x t is t r a n s m i t t e d in P . L o u v r e 3 1 2 9 a n d P . Brit. M u s . 1 0 2 5 2 . T h e latter text c o n t a i n s in n o t e s of copiers as d a t e s t h e s e v e n t e e n t h y e a r of N e c t a n e b o I (= 361 B C E ) a n d t h e e l e v e n t h y e a r of A l e x a n d e r I I (= 3 1 2 B C E ) . F o r t h e e d i t i o n a n d a G e r m a n t r a n s l a t i o n ( q u o t e d a b o v e ) , see S. S c h o t t , Das Buch vom Sieg über Seth ( U r k u n d e n des ä g y p t i s c h e n A l t e r t u m s 6; L e i p z i g / B e r l i n : 1929) 1-59. 8 2

3

2

8 3

8 4

3

THE

293

JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

of Coptos do, because Typhon had a ruddy complexion and was asinine in form" (transl. J.G. Griffiths). In a similar passage derived from Manetho Plutarch mentions that the inhabitants of Eileithyiaspolis burned alive "people w h o were called typhonic" (Tixpcoveunx; Ka^ouvxeq) and that their ashes were scattered (De Isid. 73). In Diodorus Siculus, one can find a reference to an ancient practice of sacrificing people with the same color of skin as Seth-Typhon near the grave of Osiris. 85

86

2.7. Although scholars usually do not think that the passages on the sacrifice of typhonic people in Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus reflect the actual killing of humans, it is not far fetched to see a connection between the references to the Jews as Typhonians and the outbursts of hatred against the Jews which occasionally took place in ancient Egypt and produced many victims. David Frankfurter discusses some of the anti-Jewish texts which can be linked to SethTyphon and assumes that they help to explain the brutal reaction of the indigenous Egyptian population to the Jewish revolt in the Cyrenaica and Egypt in 116-117 C E . H e finds that the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt were almost completely exterminated not because of the retaliation by the Romans but because of the extreme violence of the indigenous soldiers against the J e w s . It is obvious that there was a strong anti-Jewish animosity among the Egyptians during and directly after the revolt. However, Frankfurter's thesis that the prophecy of CPJ 520 and the unpublished fragment in P O x y are directly linked to the revolt is not convincing. It is highly probable 87

88

89

90

8 5

De Isid. 3 0 : xcov jnèv ocvGpomcûv xoùç nuppoùç [ m i ] TtporcriXaidCovxec, ôvov ôè KaxaKpTijxviÇovxeç, œç Korcxixai, Ôioc xo 7cupp6v yeyovévai xôv Tvcpcova m i ôvcoÔri rnv %pôav. D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s 1.88: m i xcov àvBpcoTccov ôè xcrbç ÔJXOXPCOMXXTOVÇ xcp Tocpcovi xo naXaibv imo xcov PaaiXécov <paoi 0\>ea6ai rcpôç xcp xàcpcp xcp 'OaCpiÔoç. F o r e x a m p l e , see J . G w y n Griffiths, Plutarch's De hide et Osiride ( C a m b r i d g e : 1970) 4 0 8 a n d 5 5 1 - 5 5 2 . O n similar traditions in G r e e k religion, A. H e n r i c h s , " H u m a n Sacrifice in G r e e k R e l i g i o n . T h r e e C a s e S t u d i e s , " Le sacrifice dans l'antiquité ( E n t r e t i e n s F o n d a t i o n H a r d t 2 7 ; G e n e v a : 1981) 1 9 5 - 2 3 5 . F r a n k f u r t e r , "Lest E g y p t ' s C i t i e s . " F r a n k f u r t e r , "Lest E g y p t ' s C i t i e s , " 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 . Cf. E . M . S m a l l w o o d , The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: 1976) 4 0 5 - 4 0 9 . F r a n k f u r t e r , " L e s t E g y p t ' s C i t i e s , " 2 0 8 : ". . . CPJ 5 2 0 w a s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y c o m p o s e d as p r o p a g a n d a for o p p o s i n g t h e J e w i s h r e v o l t . " A l r e a d y M a n t e u f f e l , " P r o p h é t i e , " 1 2 3 - 1 2 4 , l i n k e d CPJ 5 2 0 t o t h e d i a s p o r a revolt of 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 C E . F r a n k furter also discusses t h e r e f e r e n c e t o a n a n n u a l c e l e b r a t i o n of t h e t r i u m p h o v e r t h e J e w s in CPJ 4 5 0 (late s e c o n d c e n t u r y C E ) . I n his view t h e d r a m a of this c e l e b r a t i o n " p o r t r a y e d t h e J e w s as T y p h o n i a n s " ( p p . 2 1 3 - 2 1 5 , e s p . p . 215). 8 6

87

8 8

8 9

9 0

294

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA* ANAN ABUSCH

that social and ethnic tensions already existed before the open conflict between Jews and other ethnic groups in Egypt, and that the typhonic rhetoric was a slow but continuous poison which did not cause the outbursts of violence against the Jews themselves but contributed to their vehemence. Anti-Jewish utterances had already been articulated well before the revolt of 116-117. T h e anti-Jewish ideology of CPJ 520 might have been connected with the revolt of 116-117 but just as easily with earlier conflicts with the J e w s . Manetho wrote his anti-Jewish propaganda as early as the third century BCE. As John Collins rightly remarks, apocalyptic texts with a radical political message like the Oracle of the Potter could easily be adapted to a new situation through a few changes of the text. T h e present version of the Potter's Oracle dates probably from the third century CE, but the text itself is much earlier. Discrepancies between the indications of periods of government in the two versions of this oracle form the point of departure of Koenen's date of the oldest version of the Oracle shortly after the rebellion of Harsiesis ( 1 3 0 - 1 2 9 BCE), but these changes prove unequivocably that such texts were read during a longer period and adapted to later circumstances. For similar reasons, Gideon Bohak's interpretation of the prophecy of CPJ 520 as a re­ sponse of the Egyptian population of Heliopolis to the founding of Onias' temple can be considered no more than a good guess. It is possible that the prophecy originated in Heliopolis after the erection of this temple, but the correspondences with Manetho and Chaeremon's passages and the fluidity of these traditions imply that an­ other origin cannot be excluded. What is certain is that the reasons which Manetho provides for the transfer of the impure Egyptians to the quarries east of the Nile strike at the heart of the myth. H e tells the reader that Amenophis made this decision in order to purify Egypt and to make the gods 91

92

93

94

95

9 1

S. D a v i s , Race-Relations in Ancient Egypt: Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew, Roman ( L o n d o n : 1951); K . G o u d r i a a n , Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt ( D u t c h M o n o g r a p h s in H i s t o r y a n d A r c h a e o l o g y 5; A m s t e r d a m : 1988). W i t h S t e r n in CPJ I I I , 120; cf. Y o y o t t e , " E g y p t e , " 134. See also E. V a n ' t D a c k , W . C l a r y s s e , G . C o h e n , J . Q u a e g e b e u r & J . K . W i n n i c k i , The Judean-SyrianEgyptian Conflict of 103-101 BC: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a "War of Sceptres" (Brussels: 1989). K o e n e n , " T o p f e r o r a k e l , " 1 8 6 - 1 9 3 ; Idem, " A S u p p l e m e n t a r y N o t e o n t h e D a t e of t h e O r a c l e of t h e P o t t e r , " £ P £ 5 4 (1984) 9 - 1 3 . Cf. C o l l i n s , " S i b y l , " 6 3 : " T h e Potter's Oracle, t h e n , w a s a fluid t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h w a s u p d a t e d r e p e a t e d l y in light of historical e v e n t s . " M a n e t h o m e n t i o n s S e t h - T y p h o n m o r e often; see F r a g . 7 8 - 7 9 , 8 6 (= P l u t a r c h , 9 2

9 3

9 4

9 5

295

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

visible again. T h e second reason refers to yet another element of the Seth-Typhon myth: the tradition that the gods were hiding them­ selves from Seth-Typhon. A passage in CA 2.128 contains a brief reference to the flight of the gods to Egypt and their metamorphosis, although Seth-Typhon is not mentioned explicitly: . . the gods, according to their [the Egyptians'] account, took refuge in their country and saved themselves by assuming the form of wild animals. . . ." The tradition of the flight of the gods before Seth-Typhon was wellknown in the first century C E both in the east and in R o m e . As long as Seth-Typhon in the person of the impure Typhonians was present in Egypt, the deities would conceal themselves. Thus the negative association of the J e w s with S e t h - T y p h o n enabled the Alexandrians and other Greeks living in Egypt as well as the indig­ enous Egyptians to construct the Jews as scapegoats w h o had to be driven out or even killed during periods of distress, like Seth-Typhon according to the conflict myth. 96

97

98

99

3. Josephus' strategies of refutation A detailed and systematic analysis of Josephus' method of refutation employed in Contra Apionem is still a desideratum. At least two aspects 100

De Iside 4 9 , 6 2 , 73). I n t h e last p a s s a g e T y p h o n is m e n t i o n e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h s c a p e g o a t rituals. T h e function of s c a p e g o a t s clearly a p p e a r s f r o m a p a s s a g e a t t r i b ­ u t e d to H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a a n d t r a n s m i t t e d b y D i o d o r u s Siculus (40.3), see S t e r n , Authors I, 2 5 - 2 6 . T h e n a t i v e E g y p t i a n s d e c i d e to get rid of a pestilence b y d r i v i n g a w a y all foreigners o u t of E g y p t . A few lines f u r t h e r is n o t e d : " B u t t h e g r e a t e r n u m b e r w e r e d r i v e n i n t o w h a t is n o w called J u d a e a , w h i c h is n o t far d i s t a n t f r o m E g y p t a n d w a s at t h a t t i m e utterly u n i n h a b i t e d " ( 4 0 . 3 . 1 - 2 ; transl. F . R . W a l t o n ) . O n t h e flight of t h e g o d s for S e t h - T y p h o n , see t h e references in V a n H e n t e n , "Antiochus IV," 2 3 0 - 2 3 2 . AiyuTcxioi 8'apa novoi 8 i a TO Kaxacpvyeiv, coq cpaaiv, eiq rnv %&pav avxcov xohq Qeovq m i aco^nvai ^.exaPaX^vxaq eiq jxopcpaq Gnpicov e^aipexov y&paq evpovxo . . . J . G . Griffiths, " T h e Flight of t h e G o d s b e f o r e T y p h o n : a n U n r e c o g n i z e d M y t h ? , " Hermes 8 8 (1960) 3 7 4 - 3 7 6 . F o r further references, see V a n H e n t e n , " A n t i o c h u s IV," 230-232. E.g. A n t o n i n u s Liberalis 2 8 . 1 - 4 ; O v i d i u s , Metam. 5 . 3 4 6 - 3 5 8 ; Apollonius R h o d i u s 2.1214-1215. S o m e scholars, h o w e v e r , discuss J o s e p h u s ' m e t h o d of refutation in CA in g e n ­ eral. D . M . H a y , " W h a t is P r o o f ? — R h e t o r i c a l Verification in P h i l o , J o s e p h u s a n d Q u i n t i l i a n , " Society of Biblical Literature 1979 Seminar Papers, vol. I I , e d . P . J . A c h t e m e i e r ; M i s s o u l a ( M o n t a n a 1979), 8 7 - 1 0 0 , a r g u e s c o n v i n c i n g l y t h a t J o s e p h u s in CA as well as Philo in Flacc. use p a r a d i g m s of c o n t e m p o r a r y gentile r h e t o r i c s . H e offers a s u m ­ m a r y of t h e kinds of a r g u m e n t u s e d b y J o s e p h u s ( p p . 9 3 - 9 7 ) . V a l u a b l e o b s e r v a t i o n s 9 6

9 7

9 8

9 9

1 0 0

296

3

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

of Josephus' refutations deserve serious attention and detailed research. First, although it is difficult to pin down blatant imitation and ex­ plicit use on the part of Josephus of non-Jewish rhetoric, theoretical works concerning rhetorical strategies for the refutation of accusa­ tions should be used as comparative material. In particular, those passages found in such sources which reflect on the nature of accu­ sations and refutations can both provide a framework for approach­ ing Josephus' own rhetorical structure and illuminate certain specific strategies c o m m o n to rhetorical theory and Josephan practice. O n the basis of this initial work, we can proceed with the second task, that of analyzing in detail the content and method of Josephus' refu­ tations within the work itself. This will not only allow us to evaluate Josephus' rhetorical strategies, but will offer insight into Josephus' own use and understanding of his sources. T o this end, we shall look most carefully at Josephus' rhetorical treatment of the accusations of Jewish origins, of Jewish ass worship, and finally of the mythological background we have shown underlies these accusations. 3.1. Josephus' Contra Apionem has often been considered an apology, a genre designation based on the characteristics of a number of early Christian sources. These texts dating from the second century on­ wards combine aspects of the rhetorical categories of forensic and epideictic speech. Recently, some scholars have rightly emphasized the correspondences between Contra Apionem and Aristotle's third category of speeches, the genos epideiktikon (Rhet. 1.3.1-3), for, in this work, Josephus does not merely deal with the anti-Jewish slanders of Apion and others, but also provides an extensive laudatory descrip­ tion of Judaism (CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 8 6 ) . Even in the earlier section on the Jews in Alexandria in 2 . 3 3 - 7 8 , the balance between refutation and praise already shifts towards the latter. T h e refutation of the accusation 101

102

103

c a n also b e f o u n d in S. J . D . C o h e n , " H i s t o r y a n d H i s t o r i o g r a p h y in t h e Contra Apionem of J o s e p h u s , " History and Theory. Studies in the Philosophy of History 27 (1988) 1 - 1 1 . S e e , for e x a m p l e , K . W e g e n a s t , " A p o l o g e t e n , " KP I, 4 5 5 ; H . K o e s t e r , Introduc­ tion to the Mew Testament I I , H i s t o r y a n d L i t e r a t u r e of E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y (PhiladelphiaB e r l i n - N e w Y o r k : 1982) 3 3 8 - 3 4 5 ; A. D i h l e , Die griechische und lateinische Literatur der Kaiserzeit ( M ü n c h e n : 1989) 3 6 6 - 3 6 8 . S e e S. M a s o n ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to this v o l u m e . D . L. B a l c h , " T w o A p o l o g e t i c E n c o m i a : D i o n y s i u s o n R o m e a n d J o s e p h u s o n t h e J e w s , " JSJ 13 (1982) 1 0 2 - 1 2 2 . H a y , "Proof," 8 9 , notes t h a t t h e switch in J o s e p h u s ' defense from refutation to a positive s t a t e m e n t c o r r e s p o n d s to a r e m a r k b y Q u i n t i l i a n i m p l y i n g t h a t , as a d e f e n d a n t , o n e m u s t first refute t h e a c c u s a t i o n a n d s u b s e q u e n d y p r e s e n t o n e ' s o w n case (Inst. 5.13.53). 101

1 0 2

1 0 3

297

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

of the ritual killing of a Greek is seized by Josephus as an opportu­ nity to give a detailed report on the temple (2.89-111). This shift is likewise reflected in the observation that technical forensic terminology drops off once Josephus has begun the eulogy on the Jewish people. For example, the term niatiq in the sense of "proof" or "evidence" serves an explicidy rhetorical purpose in the first book and half of the second where it is used in the plural as reference to dependable textual sources (CA 1.72; 2 . 1 8 ) . In the encomium, on the other hand, it serves merely the narrative and de­ scriptive purpose of characterizing the unique relationship between the Jewish people and G o d (cf. 2.169, 2 1 8 ) . Josephus' frequent use of technical forensic terms like KocTnyopfa, KaTnyopea), (e%)eXe7%co (with the meaning "refute"), and, most importandy, iidproq and words related to i t also imply that Contra Apionem is a work in which a section of epideictic discourse is embedded in a largely forensic argument. The relationship between these rhetorical modes holds a key to understanding the work as a whole. Those sections which assume the form of a eulogy (e7tccivo<; Aoyoq or eyKcojLiiov, cf. CA 2.147) and exhibit its characteristics of epideictic speech support the assumption that the work as a whole was first and foremost intended for a gentile audience. The fact that Josephus does not appeal to explicit pas­ sages of the Hebrew Bible or to divine revelation further confirms this conclusion. Yet, while we accept the possibility voiced by Mason 104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

1 0 4

It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t J o s e p h u s uses nicxeiq in t h e m o r e g e n e r a l sense of "specific e v i d e n c e " a n d n o t in t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n sense of " t y p e s of p r o o f " o r " m a n ­ n e r s of p r e s e n t i n g proof." S e e b e l o w in 3.2. Cf. CA 2 . 2 3 9 , w h e r e t h e v e r b juaievco is ironically u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e G r e e k legislators w h o , a l t h o u g h b e i n g " m o s t t r u s t e d , " a r e c e n s u r e d b y G r e e k sages for " s o w i n g in t h e m i n d s of t h e m a s s e s t h e first seeds of s u c h (faulty) n o t i o n s a b o u t t h e gods." Cf. CA 1.53; 2.4, 7, 3 3 , 117, 132, 137, 142, 1 4 7 - 1 4 8 , 2 3 8 , 2 5 8 , 2 8 5 , 2 8 8 ; cf. 2 . 2 6 4 c o n c e r n i n g S o c r a t e s a n d 2 . 2 6 7 a b o u t N i n u s t h e priestess. J o s e p h u s s u m ­ m a r i z e s t h e a c c u s a t i o n s in 2 . 1 - 7 a n d 2 . 2 8 8 - 2 8 9 . Cf. also anoTvoyia (2.147; cf. t h e n o n - t e c h n i c a l use in 2.275) a n d dvaTcoA^ynxa (2.137). CA 1.105, 3 0 3 ; 2.2, 138. Cf. SizXeyxn (2.149). See besides \iapxvq, napxupia a n d ^apTDpeco: CA 1.4, 5 0 , 5 2 , 5 9 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 7 4 , 9 3 , 104, 106, 112, 115, 127, 129, 160, 2 0 0 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 7 ; 2 . 1 , 136, 155, 168, 279, 2 8 8 , 2 9 0 . A r i s t o d e , Met. 1.3.3. See further S. M a s o n ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o this v o l u m e . Cohen, "History," 6-7. M a s o n , w i t h further references. H a y , "Proof," 9 7 , a r g u e s t h a t CA w a s p r i m a ­ rily i n t e n d e d for gentile r e a d e r s a n d m e a n t as a p p e a l t o c o n v e r s i o n . 1 0 5

1 0 6

107

1 0 8

1 0 9

1 1 0

111

1 1 2

298

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSGH

and others that a proselytizing impulse is present, or perhaps even dominant, in Contra Apionem, we believe that this interpretation should be integrated with an evaluation of the pervasive use of forensic rhetoric. In other words, the clear shift in perspective at 2.145 from refutation arguments to speech of praise and the concomitant shifts in rhetorical style need to be explained in terms of the purpose and structure of the work as a whole. 5

3.2 Josephus systematic refutation is apparent from his use of a set of technical terms which originate in dicanic speech. Several times Josephus draws an analogy between his discussion of accusations and the procedure during a lawsuit. This connection between Contra Apionem and forensic speech calls for broader research into the cor­ respondences between the theory and the practice of forensic speech. W e will here concentrate upon the connection between Josephus' modes of refutation and remarks on argumentation found in the most influential ancient treatment of rhetoric, Aristotle's The Art of Rhetoric. First, we shall briefly refer to some basic distinctions between types of proof and types of argumentation. Secondly, we shall discuss Josephus' way of dealing with the accusations and slander of his opponents in detail. Aristotle describes three kinds of speeches, deliberative, forensic and epideictic (see e.g. 1.3.3). While these categories do not strictly account for the complex nature of Josephus' work, they allow the student of rhetoric to make distinctions between one mode and an­ other. In addition to these general categories, Aristode defines two kinds of proof, inartificial proofs which simply exist or can be taken into use (axexvoi Tciaxeiq, Rhet. 1.2.2; 1.15.1-33), and artificial proofs, which have to be invented by the orator (evT£%voi 7UGT£i<;, 1.2.2). In his extended discussion of the various kinds of 7iicrcei<;, Aristotle 113

114

115

1 1 3

A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of J o s e p h u s ' refutation of A p i o n (CA 2.5), J o s e p h u s c o m ­ m e n t s t h a t h e o u g h t n o t skip o v e r A p i o n " w h o h a s w r i t t e n a n i n d i c t m e n t (mTriYopCa) of u s f o r m a l e n o u g h for a c o u r t of l a w (©<; ev 8ucfl)." A t t h e e n d of this refutation, j u s t before h e is t o b e g i n his p a n e g y r i c , J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s t h a t A p i o n ' s g r u e s o m e d e a t h is a p p r o p r i a t e p u n i s h m e n t (Sovvai &IKX\V xr\v Ttpercouaav) for his wrongful a c c u ­ sations of t h e J e w s a n d his m a l i g n i n g his o w n c o u n t r y ' s laws ( 2 . 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 ) . F o r i n t r o d u c t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n a n d references, see W . E i s e n h u t , Einjuhrung in die antike Rhetorik und ihre Geschkhte ( D a r m s t a d t : 1982); G . A . K e n n e d y , Aristotle O n R h e t o r i c : A Theory of Civic Discourse, Newly Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes ( N e w Y o r k - O x f o r d : 1991); D . J . F u r l e y & A . N e h a m a s (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays ( P r i n c e t o n : 1994). Rhet., 1 . 1 5 . 3 - 3 3 ; 2 . 2 0 . 1 - 2 6 . 5 ; 3 . 1 7 . 1 . 1 1 4

1 , 5

THE

JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

299

distinguishes five kinds of proof which are inartificial and which are specificly suited for use in forensic speech: laws (vouoi), witnesses (lidprupeq), contracts (auvOfjicai), torture (pdoavoi) and oaths (opicoi). These types of proof are contrasted with probabilities which can be employed in the case that no witnesses can be produced (on 8K XCOV ekoicov 8ei K p i v e i v , 1.15.17). As we shall argue below, Josephus ap­ peals to several of these Aristotelian kinds of inartificial proof: laws, witnesses and probabilities. Other passages of Aristode's famous work, however, also serve to clarify Josephan practice, for Josephus draws freely on various kinds of proof and argumentation and combines them for his own purposes, although not in a systematic way. Aristotle also defines two general modes of argumentation, the example (icapdSeiyjLia) and the enthymeme (ev0uur||ia, 1.2.8; 2.20. 1-2; 3.17.5 and elsewhere). These in turn are correlated to the gen­ eral categories of speech. O n the one hand, 7iocpd8evY|ia is inductive and is especially used in epideictic speech because it offers a futureoriented perspective and, on the other, ev0u|ir||xa is deductive, based upon real or apparent syllogisms and the basic type of argumenta­ tion in forensic speech. Most enthymemes are not necessarily true, but drawn from probable premises. Probabilities a n d / o r indications provide the raw material from which enthymemes are derived (Aiyexoci ydp ev9\)jiiiiiaxa ec; eiKoxcov K a i ariiieicov, 1.2.14). In book two, Aristotle defines the enthymeme in general and describes its specific topics, like a conclusion a minore ad mqjus, kinds of analogy, the inextricable connection of cause and effect (no cause without an effect) or the meaning of a name (Rhet. 2 . 2 2 - 2 3 ) . A detailed discussion of these topoi would lead us too far afield; we can only point out here that some of these strategies were adopted by Josephus: "turning upon the opponent what has been said against ourselves" (. . . EK XCOV eipriuivcov KOCG' ocuxoix; npbq xov e i r c o v x a , 2.23.7; transl. J. H . Freese) and the examination of contradictions: "Another topic, appropriate to refutation, consists in examining contradictions, whether in dates, actions, or words . . . " In addition to Kocxriyopm and Kocxriyopeco, Josephus uses the terms 8uxpoAr| ("slander", "slanderous attack") and 8iapdA,Axo ("malign", "attack" or "accuse") in several key passages to 116

117

118

1 , 6

Rhet., 1.15.2. See further E i s e n h u t , Einjuhrung, 3 3 - 3 4 ; M . F . B u r n y e a t , " E n t h y m e m e : Aristotle on t h e Logic of P e r s u a s i o n , " in F u r l e y & N e h a m a s , Aristotle's R h e t o r i c , 3 - 5 5 . "AWoq e^eyKiiKoq, TO TOC <xvo|xota)YO\>n.Eva aicorceiv, ei xi dvo|ioAx)Yoi>n£vov EK rcdvxcov rai xpovcov Kai rcpd^eow rai XoyoM (Rhet. 2.23.23). 117

118

300

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA'ANAN ABUSCH

characterize the accusations of his opponents (1.53, 219; 2.145; cf. 1.70). This use of rhetorical terminology is no accidental turn of phrase, but calls upon specific rhetorical vocabulary familiar to us from among others Aristotle's treatment of cases of prejudice and slanderous at­ tack (8iapoA.fi, Rhet. 3 . 1 5 ) . In this passage, he describes several ways of removing prejudicial attacks, like contesting the disputed points (TOC d|Li(piapr|To{)|Li£va drcavxav) by denial or qualifications (3.15.2) or indicating that others and, if possible, the accuser himself are impli­ cated in similar charges. This strategy has been clearly applied by Josephus, as we shall see in the next section: "Another method con­ sists in counter-attacking the accuser (dvTi8iocPdM.eiv TOV 8iapdM.ovToc); for it would be absurd to believe the words of one w h o is himself unworthy of belief" (3.15.7). This brief and selective discussion of Aristotelian categories and strategies of oratory argumentation helps us to distinguish various Josephan strategies of refutation and enables us to note possible correspondences between Josephus' text and Aristode's forensics. 119

120

121

3.3 Josephus' strategies of refutation can hardly be considered spe­ cifically Jewish, nor do they specifically appeal to Jewish readers. Citations of the Bible are rare and, except for a few notable excep­ tions, specific treatment of Jewish law is all but absent. Yet, the ques­ tion remains to be answered: does Josephus make more specific use of Greek rhetorical strategies and traditions? Although it is necessary to proceed here with some caution, an analysis of specific passages in Contra Apionem leads to the observation that Josephus did follow specific strategies of refutation. H e seems to have made use of a set of arguments, which he applies repeatedly and in various combinations. Josephus informs the reader explicitly that he will try to refute two categories of accusations. First, he responds to the false accusation and prejudice (Kaxnyopiac; 7capa86^oi) K a i 8iapoA,fi<;) concerning his "history", i.e. the Jewish Antiquities (1.53). Secondly, he attempts to refute a large number of false accusations concerning the Jewish people (1.219). Josephus makes both his aims and his basic strategy explicit:

1 , 9

Cf. Rhet. 2 . 2 3 . 2 4 a n d 3 . 1 4 . 7 . M o r e extensive strategies c o n c e r n i n g 8tapoAr| c a n b e f o u n d in Pseudo-Aristotle, Rhetoric to Alexander, a w o r k d a t i n g f r o m t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B C E a n d often a t t r i b u t e d to A n a x i m e n e s o f L a m p s a k o s (see c h s . 2 9 a n d 3 6 , 1 4 3 6 b - 1 4 3 8 a a n d 1 4 4 l b - 1 4 4 2 b ) . K e n n e d y , Aristotle, n o t e s t h a t this c h a p t e r discusses p r e j u d i c i a l a t t a c k . T h e key p h r a s e s 8iapoXf| a n d 8 i a p d M x o in this c h a p t e r m e a n " s l a n d e r " (3.15.4) o r " p r e j u ­ d i c e " a n d " a t t a c k " respectively; see 2 6 2 n . 192 a n d 2 6 7 n. 2 1 0 . 1 2 0

121

301

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

"I have still to deal with one of the topics proposed at the beginning of this work, namely, to expose the fictitious nature of the accusa­ tions and aspersions cast by certain persons upon our nation (TO yevoq TIJICDV), and to convict the authors of them out of their own mouths (. . . xaq SiaPoAxxq KCCI Taq AoiSopiaq, alq K£%pr|VTa{ T i v e q KOCTOC TO\) yevooq fllicov, o c 7 c o 8 e i ^ a i \|/ea)8eiq, K a i TOI<; yeypa<pooi xavxaq KOC0' eoruTcov Xpf|aaa0ai j i d p T D a i v , 1.219)". It is important to note that Josephus uses the notion of 8iaPoA,r| in order to formulate a task of refuting a double layer of prejudice, prejudicial attacks and slanders against Josephus himself and his previous work and accusations against the Jewish people as a whole (cf. also the summaries of the accusations in CA 2.7, 288-289). His own self-defence is closely connected with his counter-attacks against the critics of the Jews. T h e dicanic vocabu­ lary consisting of KocTnyopiot, j i d p T i x ; and related phrases (see 3.2) gives specific shape to his stated aims. T h e specific methods of refutation similarly reflect this rhetorical artifice employed by Josephus. Josephus sets about his task with the belief that "fools must be refuted not by arguments, but by facts", an appeal to inartificial proof. H e not only promises "to expose the fictitious nature of the accusations," but he more specifically claims that he will "convict the authors of them (the accusations) out of their own mouths", which echoes Aristotelian enthymemes belonging to artificial proof. Contra Apionem does indeed employ two kinds of enthymemes presented in Aristode: 1) turning upon the opponent what has been said against oneself (Rhet. 2.23.7), and 2) pointing out of contradictions (dvo|ioAoyot>|Liev(x, Rhet. 2.23.23, see above). Within this latter strategy of argumentation, several kinds of contradictions can be discerned in Contra Apionem: 1) internal contradictions like chronological inconsistencies within a source (CA 1.254-287, 2 9 3 303, 312-320; 2.15-32, 33-78), and 2) contradictions between sources, for example the demonstration of contradictions between the passage discussed and other sources with a similar accusation or related data (1.293-303, 3 1 2 - 3 2 0 ; 2 . 1 5 - 3 2 , 3 3 - 7 8 , 79-144). Both kinds of con­ tradictions are indicated in a passage about the accusers: ". . . they did not hesitate to contradict their ancient chronicles, nay, in the blindness of their passion, they failed to perceive that in what they wrote they actually contradicted themselves" (1.226). 122

123

Josephus draws on three of Aristode's five inartificial nioxEiq

of

122

CA 2.102.

1 2 3

Ou8e xaiq dpxaiai<; avicov dvaypacpaiq WKvt|aav evavxia Aiyeiv, aXXa m l acpCaiv

302

5

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

forensic speech mentioned above. Mapiupeq constitute the single most important type of evidence brought by Josephus. T h e frequency of this word establishes it as a trope within the text, by which is meant, a consistent mode of presentation which characterizes the tone and setting for the imagined argumentation. Aristotle specifically distin­ guishes between ancient and recent witnesses and clearly prefers the ancient witness of poets "and men of repute whose judgements are known to all" (1.15.13; cf. 1.15.17; transl. J. H. Freese). It is pre­ cisely this preference for ancient and reputable sources which fuels so much of Josephus argument. Josephus also depends heavily on the argument of the improbability of accusations (1.254-287; 2 . 1 5 32, 79-144), a device propagated by Aristotle in cases where wit­ nesses are missing (Rhet. 1.15.17). Josephus calls upon Jewish law or custom (VOJIOI) several times to support his argumentation. His references to the legislation of Moses concerning lepers (1.254-287) as well as his description of the temple and its laws concerning for­ eigners (2.102-111) are used to refute the association of the Jews with lepers and the accusation of the annual sacrifice of a Greek respectively. Finally, he refers to Jewish norms concerning the place and function of the ass within Jewish practice and custom in his refutation of the ass libel (2.86-88). Bdoavoi, torture, is in Aristode s view the weakest of the five categories of inartificial proof. H e is sceptical about the trustworthiness of proof derived from torture for the obvious reason that the victim will give whatever evidence satis­ fies his torturer (1.15.26). Josephus, however, finds a variant on this category which he believes strengthens his argument gready. In 2 . 2 3 2 235, he uses the almost proverbial tradition of martyrdom on the part of Jews for their laws as proof of the excellence of those laws and the nation that observes t h e m . H e compares Jewish law with Plato's laws and Jewish obedience to the law with Lacedaemonian observance of their laws (2.223-231), concluding that Jewish laws are not only the most noble but also most faithfully adhered to. 5

124

5

125

OCUTOI<; evotvxia ypdcpovxeq x>nb XDcp^oiTixoq xox> naQoxx; f|yvoT|oav. Cf. 1.253 a n d 1.303. S e e also C o h e n , " H i s t o r y , " 3 - 4 . S e e a b o v e (3.2) a n d cf. Rhet. 1.2.15; 2 . 2 5 . 8 - 1 1 . " I d o n o t refer to t h a t easiest of d e a t h s , o n t h e batdefield, b u t d e a t h a c c o m p a n i e d b y p h y s i c a l t o r t u r e (\izxa X\)\ir\(; TOW aco^idxcov), w h i c h is t h o u g h t t o b e t h e h a r d e s t of all. T o s u c h a d e a t h w e a r e , in m y belief, e x p o s e d b y s o m e of o u r c o n q u e r o r s , n o t f r o m h a t r e d of t h o s e at t h e i r m e r c y , b u t f r o m a curiosity t o witness t h e a s t o n i s h i n g s p e c t a c l e of m e n w h o believe t h a t t h e o n l y evil w h i c h c a n befall t h e m is t o b e c o m p e l l e d t o d o a n y act o r u t t e r a n y w o r d c o n t r a r y t o t h e i r l a w s " (CA 2 . 2 3 2 - 2 3 3 ) . 1 2 4

1 2 5

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

303

In this final mode of argumentation, an interesting development can be observed. Josephus' semi-legal refutation of his accusers in large measure depends upon a comparison between the character of the Jewish people and that of the Greeks. T h e epideictic section beginning at CA 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 8 6 can be described as a panegyric, even though Josephus himself claims that his "object is not to compose a panegyric (eyKcouiov) upon our nation" (cf. 2.146-147). Yet, to this denial he adds: "but I consider that, in reply to the numerous false accusations which are brought against us, the fairest defence which we can offer is to be found in the laws which govern our daily life" (2.147). It is thus apparent that Josephus recognizes the rhetorical shift in tone and style that he makes at this point in his refutation. The distinctions in mode of speech proposed by Aristotle are not lost on him. Yet, it is more complicated than that, since Aristotle does not account for the relationship between these various modes. By contrast, the panegyrical section presented by Josephus must unequivocably be considered part of Josephus' strategy of refutation. Josephus himself links these two distinct modalities by explicitly employing his praise sections as support for the dependability and authenticity of his Jewish textual witness, while his character assassi­ nation of Greek historiography is used to undermine the prosecutor's witnesses. The ignorance and ill-will of Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus and others forces Josephus into a presentation of the facts which takes the form of descriptive passages concerning the Jewish people. It is fair to say that this encomium constitutes one of the main and certainly the single most extended method of refutation in his arse­ nal. More needs to be done on this overlapping of category and the relationship between panegyric and refutation since this question lies at the heart of debates surrounding the purpose of the book, its intended audience, and its relationship to classical rhetorical theory. It is clear at least that these elements cannot be simply distilled from each other along Aristotelian lines of reasoning. Josephus' refutations are not just dressing or an excuse for missionary literature. If any­ thing, the text itself presents precisely the opposite picture. His enco­ mium serves a clear function within his forensic mode. 3.4. While Josephus may have been aware that he was blurring dis­ tinct rhetorical categories and, at the same time, did certainly rely on some of the conventional types of evidence and argumentation, the traditional Greek rhetorical system addresses only some of the

304

5

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

formal aspects of Josephus' strategies. A careful analysis of the text itself is indispensible. T h e relevant passages which contain Josephus' refutations of accusations concerning the Jewish people are: 1.254— 287 (Manetho); 1.293-303 (Chaeremon); 1.312-320 (Lysimachus); 2 . 1 5 - 3 2 (Apion); 2 . 3 3 - 7 8 (Apion); 2 . 7 9 - 1 4 4 (Apion); and 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 8 6 (Apollonius Molon and Lysimachus). Our task will be to use our conclusions about Josephus' strategy of refutation to paint a descrip­ tive picture of Josephus' actual arguments. In turn, this picture will enable us to evaluate Josephus' response to the charges of the ven­ eration of the ass, the legends concerning the Jewish origin from Egypt, and the association of the Jews with Seth-Typhon which we have argued underlies the most serious accusations presented in Josephus' sources. Josephus deals with the veneration of the ass rather summarily. Apion's accusation appears improbable in Josephus' mind (2.82) and corresponds neither with the information of other sources (2.84) nor with the use of the ass as a pack animal by the Jews (2.86-88). Josephus combines here three ways of argumentation which he often uses elsewhere: improbabilities, contradictions between sources and the evidence of more dependable witnesses. In the case of the story attributed to Mnaseas of Patara about Zabidos, Josephus turns to a list of improbabilities for his refutation: 1) there was no city with the name Dora in Idumea (2.116); 2) the story implies that the Jews had never seen a lamp before (2.118); 3) it was highly improbable that the city walls were unguarded in wartime (2.118); 4) the gates of the temple were far too heavy to be opened by Zabidos alone (2.119120), and 5) Antiochus I V could not have found the head of an ass in the temple if Zabidos had stolen it before (2.120). Josephus pays much fuller attention to Manetho's suggestion that the Jews originated from the lepers w h o were gathered by pharaoh Amenophis to work in the quarries near Avaris and that these lepers affiliated themselves with the Hyksos. According to Josephus, Manetho drew his evidence from anonymous fictitious stories and rumours (1.228-229) instead of from ancient and sacred Egyptian records, as in the case of the Hyksos (1.73; 104). Josephus explains that "un­ der the pretext of recording fables (xoc jnuGeuojieva) and current re126

127

1 2 6

C o n c e r n i n g t h e n a m e D o r a , see p . 2 8 6 . J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e b e e n well a w a r e of t h e fact t h a t t h e I d u m e a n city A d o r a m u s t h a v e b e e n m e a n t . Cf. 1.228, 2 8 7 . 1 2 7

305

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

ports (K<X! ^eyojieva) about the Jews, he (Manetho) took the liberty of introducing some incredible tales (Xoyovq ccTtiGdvoax;; cf. 1.267, 286, 304), wishing to represent us as mixed up with a crowd of Egyptian lepers and others, w h o for various maladies were condemned, as he asserts, to banishment from the country." (1.229). Here again he refutes Manetho's claims by demonstrating the many improbabilities of the story, such as the impossibility of the task of gathering to­ gether 80,000 lepers and invalids in one day (1.257); the unlikeliness that the lepers started a war against their own relatives and rejected their own national law (1.268-269); the fact that the period of gov­ ernment of pharaoh Amenophis is not specified (CA 1.230); the vis­ ibility of the Egyptian gods (1.254-255); the fact that Amenophis' aim is not realized (1.256); the fact that the Egyptian gods were not angry because of the bodily disorders of the lepers but because of their godlessness (1.256); the strangeness of the suicide of the sage Amenophis (1.257-258); the strange attitude of the lepers to the pharaoh, because they are given a city of their own (1.267); the im­ probability of the cooperation of lepers and Hyksos, because the Hyksos were enemies of Egypt (1.271-272), w h o lived in a very rich country and had no reason to invade Egypt (1.273); the improbabil­ ity that the lepers survived so long that they could attack Egypt suc­ cessfully (1.278); and finally the improbability of the name Osarsiph as an Egyptian equivalent of Moses' name (1.286). T o support this litany of improbable details, Josephus points to the contradictions within Manetho's text, in particular several chronological discrepan­ cies: the Hyksos acted in Egypt 518 years earlier than the lepers (1.230-231, 279); for the same reason Moses could not have been a leprous priest, for he lived 518 years earlier and led the Hyksos to Judaea where they became the ancestors of the Jews (1.279-286; cf. 1.253). The alliance of Hyksos and lepers is simply denied by Josephus on the authority of Manetho himself: "We have therefore Manetho's 128

129

130

1 2 8

Cf. CA 1.105 a n d 1.287 d8eo7coxo\)(; fivGoax; " a n o n y m o u s s t o r i e s . " T h e Oracle of the Potter w a s also p r e s e n t e d t o a p h a r a o h w h o is specified o n l y b y t h e n a m e A m e n o p h i s . Cf. S t e r n , Authors I, 8 4 . T h i s is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y his o w n legislation c o n c e r n i n g lepers, as J o s e p h u s states in CA 1 . 2 8 1 - 2 8 5 . Cf. Lev. 1 3 - 1 4 ; N u m . 1 2 : 1 0 - 1 5 , a n d see for a similar r e a s o n i n g Ant. 3 . 2 6 5 - 2 6 8 . Sterling, Historiography, 2 6 2 , t h i n k s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a d t h e s e c o n d story of M a n e t h o t r a n s m i t t e d in CA in his m i n d while w r i t i n g Ant. 2 . 1 7 7 a n d 3 . 2 6 5 2 6 8 . T h i s is possible, b u t u n p r o v a b l e , b e c a u s e M a n e t h o ' s n a m e is n o t g i v e n in t h e s e passages in Ant. a n d o t h e r a u t h o r s v e n t u r e d similar a c c u s a t i o n s . 129

130

306

3

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

authority for saying both that our race was not of Egyptian origin, and that there was no mixture of the races" (1.278). Josephus refutation of Chaeremon in 1.293-303 follows similar lines. Josephus once again enumerates the many improbabilities: 1) the origin of the 380,000 people gathered at Pelusium is not accounted for and 2) the reason that they are not allowed to enter Egypt goes unspecified (1.298); 3) the fate of the 430,000 people who are not driven to Syria is not reported (1.301); 4) it is unclear with which group the Jews are to be identified (1.302). H e also points out a chronological contradiction (Joseph lived four generations earlier than Moses, 1.299) and elaborates contradictions between Chaeremon and Manetho or Apion (like the different names for the pharaoh, 1.295, the different reasons for the expulsion of the afflicted Egyptians, 1.294, different numbers, 1.295, and a different alliance, 1.296297). Apion's story about the Egyptian origin of the Jews is refuted not only by a similar mode of argumentation but by specific arguments used in the earlier refutation of this accusation. It is interesting to note that this refutation begins with a descriptive passage concerning the tabernacle (2.12), which resembles the later panegyric in its reliance on Jewish traditions concerning Moses and the nature of the Jewish theocracy. T h e other problems with Apion's version of Jewish history have a familiar ring. H e sets out to discredit his accuser by claiming that Moses' supposed origin from Heliopolis is a lie based upon the story of old people (2.13-14). Once again chronological discrepancies with other sources (2.15-19), improbabilities (e.g. how could 110,000 people reach Judaea in six days while they were afflicted with tumours in the groin and other diseases? 2.20-27) and a reversal of the accusation (Apion would betray his own people, 2.28-32) all serve to hammer home his point. 131

5

T h e last passage demonstrates that Josephus also employs the Aristotelian strategy of "charging the accuser with the same charge he has used against you". Josephus uses this strategy especially in the case of Apion: Was, then, Apion's mind blinded when, in the interest of the Egyptians, he undertook to revile us and actually condemned them (eicewcov 5e raxriYopcbv)? For not only do they practice the customs with which he abuses, but, as Herodotus has informed us, they have taught others 131

Korea \ikv o\)v TOY Maveöcov oike £K xr\q Aiyvnxov TO yevoq Tipxov e a u v oike TCÖV eiceiÖev Tive<; dvep,ixör|aav.

307

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

to adopt circumcision. An ulcer on his person rendered circumcision essential; the operation brought no relief, gangrene set in, and he died in terrible tortures. . . . Apion was a defaulter to his country's laws and told lies about ours. Such was his end, and here let me bring my remarks [upon him] to a close. (2.142-144) This court-room strategy calls to mind Aristotle's remarks about counter-accusation and accusing the accuser of similar charges (Rhet. 3.15.4-5, 7). Another passage in Contra Apionem which likewise exhib­ its this way of refutation is 2.81. Here Josephus innocently remarks with regard to Apion's stories that the ass was no worse than the other animals venerated by the Egyptians (2.81). But he cannot re­ frain from comparing Apion with the ass twice: "There is the evi­ dence which Apion should have considered, had he not himself been gifted with the mind of an ass and the impudence of the dog (nisi cor asini ipse potius habuisset et impudentiam canis), which his countrymen are wont to worship." (2.85). A similar comment is to found at 2.115: "May we not, on our side, suggest that Apion is overloading the pack-ass (xov KdvOcova), that is to say himself, with a crushing pack of nonsense and lies?" This comment might constitue an attempt by Josephus to address the charge of Jewish ass veneration with the underlying association with Seth-Typhon head o n . A final question remains: what are the implications of our com­ ments on Josephus' strategies of argumentation for the assessment of his refutation of the charges which related the Jews to Seth-Typhon? The abundance of argumentation and proof in Contra Apionem is quite impressive, as will be apparent from our survey above. But can Josephus' defense of the two powerful accusations against the Jews concerning the Egyptian lepers as their ancestors and the veneration of the ass be considered effective? Josephus returns the charge of ass worship in equal measure. Yet, his comments concerning both accu­ sations are at best oblique. His refutations leave several gaps unfilled. 132

1 3 2

Cf. also J o s e p h u s ' r e f e r e n c e t o A p i o n ' s ridiculing of t h e n a m e of t h e J e w i s h g e n e r a l O n i a s of P t o l e m y V I P h i l o m e t o r a n d his wife C l e o p a t r a (CA 2.49). J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s t h e ridiculing of b o t h g e n e r a l s , O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e u s , a n d d o e s n o t give details. T h e association of t h e n a m e O n i a s ('Ovlocq) w i t h t h e ass (övoq) is o b v i o u s in G r e e k ; see F e l d m a n , Jew, 5 0 0 . T h e m o c k e r y of O n i a s c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d a n a l o g o u s to t h a t of t h e last P e r s i a n k i n g in E g y p t , A r t a x e r x e s I I I ( 3 5 8 - 3 3 8 B C E ) , w h o s e s u r n a m e O c h u s w a s also a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ovo<;; see P l u t a r c h , De Iside 3 1 ; A e l i a n u s , Var. hist. 4 . 8 ; 6.8. A n t i o c h u s I V m a y also h a v e b e e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e ass in D i o C h r y s o s t o m , Or. 3 2 . 1 0 1 ; see N . Lewis, " D i o C h r y s o s t o m ' s T y r a n t of S y r i a ' , " CPh 4 4 (1949) 3 2 - 3 3 ; E. W i l m e s , Beiträge zur Alexandrinerrede (or. 32) des Dion Chrysostomos (Bonn: 1970) 1 1 8 - 1 2 1 ; V a n H e n t e n , " A n t i o c h u s I V , " 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 .

308

3

JAN-WILLEM VAN HENTEN AND RA ANAN ABUSCH

5

T h e implication of Josephus reasoning is that the ancestors of the Jews could be identified with the Hyksos. This confirms Josephus' basic point that the Jewish people did not originate from Egypt (cf. CA 1.75, 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 , 270, 278) and demonstrates nicely that the Jews left Egypt about a thousand years before the Trojan War (CA 1.104). O n the other hand, Manetho's information about the Hyksos' rule in Egypt is hardly favorable (see above). The crux of the attack against the Jews, their lowly beginnings and their fundamentally evil and troublesome nature, in fact receives confirmation by his arguments. Even more astonishing, the association of the Hyksos as ancestors of the Jews with Seth-Typhon is left unchallenged by Josephus! Josephus leaves the sting of the accusations unanswered. Nowhere in his refu­ tation of the accusations concerning the ass and the Egyptian origin of the Jews does he refer to the mythological background of the accusations. Let us speculate about the reason for this silence for a moment. Josephus may simply not have been familiar with the SethT y p h o n traditions or with the application of them to the Jews. O n the other hand, he may have known this myth and its highly sugges­ tive potential and decided to remain silent about it. The former option may be the more probable one, which implies that Josephus could not successfully counter-attack the highly dangerous purport of the association of the Jews with Seth-Typhon which lies at the center of the case against the Jews.

4. Conclusion In § 2 we discussed the incorporation of traditions about Seth-Typhon in several of the anti-Jewish accusations in Contra Apionem concerning the origin of the Jewish people and Jewish ass veneration. W e tried to identify elements of these traditions by the use of four criteria presented at the beginning of this paragraph. T h e cumulative evidence which can be pointed out with the help of these criteria makes it highly probable that the negative mythological stereotype of SethT y p h o n forms the background of the accusations concerned ( 2 . 1 2.4). T h e associations of the Jews with Seth-Typhon as embodiment of evil and foreigners helps us to understand the outrageously nega­ tive statements about the Jews, as well as the devastating implications of the accusations (2.5-2.6). Our tentative comparison of Josephus' ways of refuting the accusations against his earlier work on the Jewish

THE JEWS AS TYPHONIANS

309

antiquities and those against the Jewish people with Aristotle's dis­ cussion of proofs in discourses can be considered a plea for a com­ prehensive investigation of Josephus' rhetorical strategies against the background of Graeco-Roman rhetorics (3.1-3). O n the surface level, Josephus' refutations seem impressive and quite convincing. H e has clearly used specific strategies of argumentation (3.4) which corre­ spond in certain formal ways to modes of speech and echo strategies of refutation discussed by Aristotle. Yet, a careful reading implies that Josephus' refutations leave certain key charges unanswered. T h e unflattering association between the Jews and the Hyksos contains a poisonous kernel. Josephus was probably not aware of associations between the archetypal Egyptian myth of Seth-Typhon in the libels transmitted by him and its devastating impact on their readers, espe­ cially those familiar with Egyptian culture. This perception of the Jewish people as a foreign force which introduces chaos into the cosmic and human order must in part be seen as the cultural background for the events which were to follow in Egypt only half a generation after the publication of Josephus' refutation.

A N ASS IN T H E JERUSALEM TEMPLE—THE ORIGINS A N D DEVELOPMENT OF T H E SLANDER BEZALEL

BAR-KOCHVA

Tel Aviv University

1. Josephus' Contra Apionem is our main source for the ass libel, one of the three notorious anti-Jewish libels known in the Hellenistic-Roman period—the others being the "blood" libel and the leper slander. According to the "ass" libel, the Jews worshiped in their Temple an ass, or an ass head, or kept in the "Holy of Holies" a statue of Moses seated on an ass. In this paper an attempt will be made to reconstruct the development of the libel and evaluate the various suggestions made so far for its origin. T h e earliest recorded version, referring to a golden ass-head, was reported by Mnaseas of Patara (c. 200 B C ) , the fragment being quoted by Apion and preserved by Josephus (CA 11.112-14). Apion himself repeated the same version in his story about the visit of Antiochus IV to the Jerusalem Temple in 168 B C (CA 11.80). Apion maintains that he drew the information from Posidonius of Apamea and Apollonius M o l o n (CA 11.79; both flourished in the first half of the first century B C ) . T h e former, however, could not have been his source: Diodorus' account of Antiochus IV's visit to the Temple, taken from Posidonius, records the Moses-ass version: Antiochus is said to have found in the Temple the statue of Moses seated on an ass, holding a book in hands ( X X X I V / X X X V . 1 . 3 ) . Another version of 1

1

D i o d o r u s d r e w t h e m a t e r i a l for b o o k s X X X I I I - X X X V I I of his Historical Library exclusively f r o m P o s i d o n i u s ; see P . T o e p e l m a n n , De Posidonio Rhodio Rerum Scriptore ( B o n n 1869), p p . 3 6 - 3 7 ; G . Busolt, " Q u e l l e n k r i t i s c h e B e i t r ä g e z u r G e s c h i c h t e d e r r ö m i s c h e n R e v o l u t i o n z e i t , " Jahrbücher fiir klassische Philologie, C X L (1890), p . 32 Iff.; p . 405ff.; E d . S c h w a r t z , RE s.v. " D i o d o r o s , " col. 690ff.; K . R e i n h a r d t , RE s.v. " P o s e i d o n i o s , " col. 630ff.; F . J a c o b y , FGrH I I I c, p . 157; A. R o s e n b e r g , Einleitung und Quellenkunde zur römischen Geschichte (Berlin 1921), 199ff.; H . S t r a s s b u r g e r , "Posei­ d o n i o s o n P r o b l e m s of t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , " Journal qf Roman Studies, L V (1965), p . 4 2 ; A . M o m i g l i a n o , Alien Wisdom ( C a m b r i d g e 1975), p p . 3 3 - 3 4 ; J . M a l i t z , Die His­ torien des Poseidonios ( M u n i c h 1983), p . 34ff.

311

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

the libel is referred to around the end of the first century A D by Tacitus (Hist. V.4.2) and hinted at by Plutarch (Quaest. conviv. IV.5.3): the story does not refer to Moses, but only to a statue of an ass, entire and not just the head. The origins and development of the ass libel have been discussed by numerous scholars since the 17th century. By and large, it can be said that there are two basic approaches: most scholars think that the libel originated in Egypt, was invented by Egyptians or by Greeks influenced by Egyptian culture. T h e claim for an Egyptian origin (or influence) is based mainly on later sources which connected the ass libel with the Exodus, and on apparent phonetic similarities. T h e testimonium of Mnaseas sets an ante quern date: the libel was already in circulation in one version or another in the Hellenistic world by the second half of the third century B C . While one or two scholars have tended to push the invention of the libel back as early as the Persian period, others have preferred the early Hellenistic age. Another approach was offered by Elias Bickermann in a stimulat­ ing paper from 1927 on the ass and "blood" libels. Bickermann argues that the ass libel was an Idumean-Hellenistic invention: Mnaseas' anecdote (ass-head) recorded an Idumean anti-Jewish tale. The original story would have related that a statue of an ass (not just an ass-head) was worshipped in the Temple. However, some features of the tale would not have been Idumean inventions but would have been borrowed from an oriental legend not directed against the Jews, which used folkloristic motifs including the com­ monly believed stupidity of the ass. Bickermann suggests that the legend was applied by the Idumeans to the Jews, and that Seleucid apologetic writers of Antiochus Epiphanes' generation then integrated 2

3

4

2

F o r b i b l i o g r a p h y a n d s u m m a r i e s of t h e v a r i o u s suggestions see E . B i c k e r m a n n , " R i t u a l m o r d u n d Eselkult," Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, L X X (1927), p . 245ff.; R . N e h e r - B e r n h e i m , " T h e libel of J e w i s h a s s - w o r s h i p , " %on, X X V I I I (1963; H e b r e w ) ; L. H . F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World ( P r i n c e t o n 1993), p p . 4 9 9 - 5 0 1 . B i c k e r m a n n ' s article w a s r e p r i n t e d in his collection of articles: Studies in Jewish and Christian History (Leiden 1 9 7 6 - 8 0 ) , vol. I I , p p . 2 4 5 - 2 5 5 . H e n c e ­ f o r w a r d , t h e references will b e t o t h e l a t e r i t e m . F o r a n early d a t i n g see, e.g., M . S t e r n , " T h e J e w s in G r e e k a n d L a t i n L i t e r a ­ t u r e " in: S. Safrai - M . S t e r n (edd.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. I I (Assen 1976), p . 1111 (without explicidy refering t o t h e ass-libel). F o r a l a t e r d a t i n g — E. G a b b a , " T h e G r o w t h of A n t i J u d a i s m o r t h e G r e e k A t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e J e w s " , The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2 ( C a m b r i d g e 1989), p p . 6 3 4 - 6 3 5 . B i c k e r m a n n , op. cit., 2 2 5 - 5 5 . 3

4

312

BEZALEL BAR-KOGHVA

the element of an ass-head into their story about Antiochus' visit to the Temple. The Moses-ass version would have come later. Posidonius of A p a m e a replaced the ass-head version of his source with the moderate story about a statue of Moses seated on an ass. Bickermann does not make clear whether in his view Posidonius invented the Moses-ass version. However, he states that Posidonius tried to "soften" the hostile version by introducing one acceptable to Hellenistic readers w h o were quite used to heroes, kings and founder-cults. Bickermann further discounts the literary sources which connect the ass libel with the Exodus as later etiological inventions, and similarly rejects all the etymological attempts to explain the origin of the libel. 5

6

7

2. Setting aside the question of the ultimate sources of inspiration, there­ fore, we should first examine the recorded material from Posidonius backwards. D o e s it support Bickermann's reconstruction? At this stage, there is some need for clarification of the exact con­ text in which the libel appeared in Posidonius-Diodorus' version. Posidonius records the visit of Antiochus IV to the Temple within his account of the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII Sidetes in 132 BC: while besieging the city, he consulted his advisers on whether to accept the Jewish request for a settlement. T h e advisers, who were hostile to the Jews, tried to convince the king to storm the city and annihilate the Jewish people. T h e y list a number of accusations against the Jews, centering around their hostility to strangers, and "reminded" the king of the visit of one of his predecessors, Antiochus I V Epiphanes, to the Jerusalem Temple: he is said to have discov­ ered in the "holy of holies" (a8utov xou Geou orjKov) a statue of a man seated on an ass. T h e bearded man represented Moses, and he held a book which was meant to be the holy book of the Jews, in which were said to be contained their "misanthropic" laws. U p o n seeing this, Antiochus I V decided to defile the Jewish Temple and perse­ cute the Jews. Thus far the counselors of Antiochus VII Sidetes. The

5

Op. cit., p p . 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 - 5 ; in a n o t h e r w o r k B i c k e r m a n n suggests t h a t t h e stories o r i g i n a t e d in t h e P h o e n i c i a n cities: Der Gott der Makkabäer (Berlin 1937), p p . 2 2 ~ 2 4 . Op. cit., (1937), p p . 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 5 1 ; also: F e l d m a n , op. cit., p . 4 9 9 . Op. cit., p p . 2 4 5 - 4 8 . 6

7

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

king rejected their advice, and made peace with the Jews (Diodorus X X X I V / X X X V . 1.3-5). N o w Posidonius would not have included the Moses-ass version in his account unless it was already in his source for the siege, and he certainly did not invent it: I have shown elsewhere that Posidonius must have rejected the ass slander, and that he omitted the "blood" libel which was the main feature in the original version of the coun­ sellors' advice. I suggested that Posidonius based his version of the siege on Timochares, a court historian w h o wrote a biography of Andochus VII Sidetes. T h e very story about Antiochus IV's visit to the Temple, integrated into the "advice", was most probably drawn from propaganda written by a royal historian of Antiochus IV or his house, who tried to justify the severe measures taken against the Jews and their religion. This was indicated by Josephus (CA 11.90), and was rightly accepted by Bickermann and others. It means that the Moses-ass story was known at least some generations before Posido­ nius, probably already in the 160's BC. Indeed, it was well suited to help justify the enforcement of the king's cult on the Jews: the Jews refused to accept the royal order, saying that they were strictly pro­ hibited from worshipping human beings. T h e court propagandist in­ dicated that this was a lie since the Jews consecrated in the "Holy of Holies" the statue of Moses seated on an ass. T h e Jewish refusal was thus exposed as a sign of disloyalty and not, as they claimed, of adherence to their ancestral tradition. T h e king was, therefore, mor­ ally entitled to force them to fulfil their obligations to the crown and take part in the official cult of the Empire. Mocking the Jews by presenting their deity as an ass or ass-head would have contributed litde to the author's purpose. The latter consideration explains why the Moses-ass version was preferred over the others, but it does not explain how the story came about in the first place. T h e Moses-ass story is a complicated com­ bination and is moderate in comparison with the ass-head libel, which appears earlier in Mnaseas' anecdote. T h e royal author of the court of Antiochus IV would hardly have so modified the more extreme 8

9

10

8

See m y f o r t h c o m i n g b o o k Anti-Semitism and Idealization of Judaism: Hellenistic Intellectuals on the Jews, 333-63 BC. C h . V I I I . 1. Op. cit., C h . X . A n e x t r a c t from T i m o c h a r e s w a s p r e s e r v e d in E u s e b i u s , PE, IX.35.1. B i c k e r m a n n , op. cit, p p . 2 4 3 - 5 . O n J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t of t h e J e r u s a l e m siege in 9

10

132 B C see B . B a r - K o c h v a , " A n t i o c h u s t h e P i o u s a n d H y r c a n u s t h e T y r a n t : C h a p t e r in t h e H i s t o r i o g r a p h y of t h e H a s m o n a e a n S t a t e , " 7 - 4 3 (Hebrew).

A

LXI(1996), pp.

314

BEZALEL BAR-KOCHVA

version had that been his source. His source must have been the moderate, Moses-ass version. Therefore, not only the ass-head, but also the Moses-ass version antedated the Maccabean Revolt. That the Moses-ass version was invented earlier in Egypt may be d e d u c e d from some philological observations of Diodorus' and Mnaseas' versions. First, the Diodorus-Posidonius story applies the name Mqyses instead of the regular Greek "Moses", while the StraboPosidonius Jewish excursus, for instance, is consistent in applying the latter spelling. Mqyses was the Egyptian form of the name as ex­ plained by Josephus (Ant. 11.228, 231), and also implied by Artapanus (in fact Mqysos—Eus. PE IX.27.3ff.), the Jewish author who is steeped in Egyptian priestly traditions. Diodorus himself writes Moses in the Jewish excursus taken from Hecataeus of Abdera (late fourth century BC) in the framework of an account based on Hecataeus' Jewish informants (XL.3.3), while in Diodorus' Egyptian ethnography, which abbreviates Hecataeus, we find Moyses in a reference evidendy based on Hecataeus' Egyptian sources (1.94.2; see the mention of Iao). W e can deduce that the form of the name was preserved in the Diodorus-Posidonius' version of the Moses-ass story, indicating an Egyptian origin for the libel as a whole. Secondly, according to Diodorus the statue of Moses seated on an ass was made of stone (AiGivov ocyaXjia—para. 1.3). Various sorts of stone (esp. granite, porphyry and basalt) were the c o m m o n sculpturing material in an­ cient Egypt. A Hellenistic "northern" story would have referred to a marble statue. T h e Mnaseas story provides other clues pertaining to the prov­ enance and sequence of development of the three versions of the libel. Josephus writes: 11

12

The latter (Mnaseas), according to Apion, relates that in the course of a long war between the Jews and the Idumeans, an inhabitant of an Idumean city called Dorii, who worshipped Apollo and bore (so we are told) the name of Zabidus, came out to the Jews and promised to 11

T h e best discussion o n t h e E g y p t i a n s o u r c e s of A r t a p a n u s is b y J . G u t m a n , The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature ( J e r u s a l e m 1 9 5 8 - 6 3 ) , vol. I I , p p . 1 0 9 - 3 5 ( H e ­ b r e w ) . O n t h e f o r m Möyses, see E . N e s t l e , " M i s c e l l e n " . Z^^flß die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, X X V I I (1907), p p . 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 ; F . H . D i a m o n d , Hecataeus of Abdera: A New Historical Approach ( A n n A r b o r , 1974), p p . 3 7 - 3 8 ; V . N i k i p r o w e t z k y , " ' M o y s e s p a l p a n s vel liniens': O n S o m e E x p l a n a t i o n s of t h e N a m e of M o s e s in P h i l o of A l e x a n d r i a , " in: F . E . G r e e n s p a h n et al. (edd.), Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel ( C h i c o , 1984). T h e t r a n s l a t i o n " m a r b l e " b y R . W . P a t o n (LCL) is m i s t a k e n . O n H e c a t a e u s ' J e w i s h e x c u r s u s a n d its s o u r c e s see B. B a r - K o c h v a , Pseudo-Hecataeus "On the Jews": r

12

315

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

deliver into their h a n d s Apollo, t h e g o d of his city, w h o w o u l d visit o u r T e m p l e if they all took their d e p a r t u r e . T h e J e w s all believed h i m ; w h e r e u p o n Z a b i d u s c o n s t r u c t e d a n a p p a r a t u s of w o o d , p u t it o v e r his person, a n d inserted in it t h r e e rows of l a m p s . T h u s a r r a y e d h e walked, p r e s e n t i n g the a p p e a r a n c e t o distant onlookers of stars m a k i n g their w a y a l o n g the e a r t h . A s t o u n d e d at this a m a z i n g spectacle, t h e J e w s kept their distance, in perfect silence. M e a n w h i l e , Z a b i d u s stealthily passed into t h e s a n c t u a r y , t o r e a w a y t h e g o l d e n h e a d of t h e pack-ass (as h e h a s facetiously written), a n d m a d e off post-haste b a c k to D o r a (CA I I . 1 1 2 - 1 4 ) . 13

T h e t h r e e versions of t h e libel c a n b e t r a c e d in M n a s e a s '

account.

Mnaseas indeed mentions only a n ass-head, b u t the original I d u m e a n story included m o r e t h a n that. B i c k e r m a n n

d r e w attention to

v e r b arcoaupoci (= t o t e a r a w a y ) , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e

the

ass-head

was just a p a r t of a sculpture, a n d c o n c l u d e d that the original story actually referred to a statue of a n ass. tion

1 4

I would a d d that the descrip­

o f t h e h e a d itself i n d i c a t e s t h a t it w a s t a k e n off a c o m p l e t e s c u l p ­

t u r e o f a n a s s ( p a r a . 1 1 4 : xfiv %puof|v . . . xou Kav0covo<; KecpaAriv = t h e g o l d e n h e a d o f the p a c k - a s s ) . T h e r e w a s a l s o a n e a r l i e r s t a g e . T h e h e a d is d e s c r i b e d a s t h a t o f a " p a c k - a s s " (K&VGCOV; p a r a . 1 1 4 ; cf. 1 1 5 , 1 2 0 ) , n o t s i m p l y o f a n a s s . T h i s s e e m s to b e a r e m n a n t of a v e r s i o n in w h i c h t h e ass h a d carry a certain burden: Moses, perhaps,

riding

o n a n ass t o

m e m o r a t e events from the time of the alleged expulsion from

to

com­ Egypt.

T h e Moses-ass version, t h e n , w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h e earliest of t h e three versions. N o w to the p r o v e n a n c e of M n a s e a s ' story. It has b e e n that the story w a s invented b y I d u m e a n setders in E g y p t .

suggested 1 5

The

ar­

g u m e n t s so far p r o d u c e d h a v e r e s t e d o n t h e g e n e r a l l y h e l d a s s u m p ­ tion t h a t t h e ass-cult libel o r i g i n a t e d i n E g y p t , a n d o n t h e fact t h a t M n a s e a s is m e n t i o n e d a s a p u p i l o f E r a t o s t h e n e s ( S u d a s.v. " M n a s e a s " ) , w h o s e r e p u t a t i o n i n c r e a s e d after m o v i n g to A l e x a n d r i a a n d his a p ­ pointment

as director of t h e A l e x a n d r i a

Library. Mnaseas

would

Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, Berkeley-Los A n g e l e s , 1 9 9 6 , p p . 1 8 - 4 3 . T h e translation: H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y {LCL), slighdy a l t e r e d . Op. cil, p . 2 5 3 . B i c k e r m a n n f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e story d i d n o t refer t o a m a r b l e o r stone statue, b u t o n e m a d e of m e t a l . J u d g i n g f r o m w h a t w e k n o w o f E g y p t i a n a n i m a l figures, a w o o d e n s c u l p t u r e w i t h a g o l d e n m a s k s e e m s t o b e m e a n t . T h e r e m o v a l of a m a s k from a statue w o u l d h a v e b e e n easily intelligible t o a n E g y p t i a n a u d i e n c e , b u t n o t so intelligible t o a n a u d i e n c e w h i c h w a s a c c u s t o m e d t o statues b e i n g m a d e entirely of stone o r m a r b l e . See esp. M . S t e r n , Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism ( J e r u s a l e m 1974— 84), vol. I, p . 9 8 . H e n c e f o r w a r d : GLAJJ. 13

14

15

316

BEZALEL BAR-KOCHVA

16

seem, therefore, to have stayed, at least for some time, in Egypt. As for the Idumean origin, it is rather obvious that the story was told by Idumeans to demonstrate the superiority of their god and ridicule the foolishness of the Jews. In fact, the story itself contains a few intrinsic signs suggesting that it originated in Egypt: a) T h e carving of animals in wood, decorated with precious metal, is well known from Egypt; b) T h e old Egyptian and oriental practice of accumulat­ ing statues of foreign deities to symbolize surrender was still known and seems to have been continued in Ptolemaic Egypt; c) The Jews are said to have been ready to accept Apollo into their Temple. Such a story (even if defamatory) would hardly have circulated among the Idumeans living near Jerusalem, and must have originated in their Diaspora. A n Idumean dispersion is known only from Egypt; d) T h e god Apollo, w h o plays a major role in the story, was popular among Hellenized Idumean military setders in Egypt, even more than in Idumea, replacing Kos, their national deity. W e can now conclude that two versions of the ass-libel, Moses seated on an ass and the statue of an ass (still not just an ass-head), were known in Egypt in the third century B C , the Moses-ass version being invented first. T h e circulation of at least the Moses-ass version at that time appears also from the translations of the Pentateuch books, which were the earliest of the Septuagint, and are unanimously dated to the third century B C . T h e translation avoids the use of the word "ass" (ovoq) where it is connected with Moses and introduces instead a general substitute. Thus in Exodus 4.20: "And Moses took 17

18

16

O n M n a s e a s see also F . Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur in der Alexanderzeit (Leipzig 1 8 9 1 - 2 ) , vol. I, p p . 6 7 9 - 8 0 ; P . M . F r a s e r , Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972), vol. I, p p . 5 2 4 - 2 5 , 7 1 5 , 7 8 1 - 8 2 ; S t e r n (n. 3 a b o v e ) , p . 1120. S e e e.g. D a n i e l 11.8; t h e C a i r o stele of t h e y e a r 3 1 1 , 11. 1 7 - 1 9 (the text: G . R o e d e r , Die äegyptische Götterwelt [ Z ü r i c h 1 9 5 9 ] , p p . 1 0 0 - 1 0 6 ; U . K a p l o n y - H e c k e l in: O . K a i s e r (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments [ G ü t e r s l o h 1 9 8 3 ] , p p . 6 1 3 19) a n d a " r e v e r s e v e r s i o n " ( A n t i o c h u s I I I is b l a m e d for violating a n d t a k i n g a w a y E g y p t i a n gods from their temples) in t h e R a p h i a d e c r e e , 11. 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 2 , 2 8 , the Egyptian p r a c t i c e b e i n g i n d i c a t e d in 1. 14 (the text: H . G a u t h i e r a n d H . Sottas, Un décret trilingue e l'honneur de Ptolémée IV [ C a i r o 1 9 2 5 ] , p p . 3 0 - 3 1 ; N . J . T h i s s e n , Studien zum Raphiadekret [ M e i s e n h e i m 1 9 6 6 ] , p p . 19, 6 0 - 6 3 ) . S e e t h e list of n a m e s in M . L a u n e y , Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris 1 9 4 9 - 5 0 ) , vol. I, p p . 5 5 6 - 8 ; I I , p p . 1 2 3 6 - 4 1 . I d o n o t believe t h e r e is a n y c o n n e c ­ t i o n b e t w e e n t h e story a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n a b o u t t h e sacrifice of asses t o A p o l l o b y t h e H y p e r b o r e a n s (Pind. Pyth. X.33ff.; A n t o n i n u s Liberalis, Met. 20). M n a s e a s himself r e f e r r e d t o t h e H y p e r b o r e a n s , s a y i n g t h a t t h e y o r i g i n a t e d in D e l p h i (FGrH I I I A , n . 2 6 4 , fr. 10). A c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e G r e e k l e g e n d c o n c e r n i n g t h e struggle of t h e g o d s a g a i n s t T y p h o n , w h e r e A p o l l o c h a n g e s himself in t e r r o r i n t o a n ibis ( A n t o n i n u s Liberalis, Met. 28), is a r e m o t e possibility. 17

1 8

AN ASS IN T H E JERUSALEM

TEMPLE

317

his wife and children, mounted them on an ass and set out for Egypt with the staff of G o d in his hand." T h e L X X wrote—eni xoc vnotfiym (= on beasts of burden). Another case is Numbers 16.15, where Moses justifies himself against the accusations of Korah and his followers: "I have not taken from them so much as a single ass; I have done no wrong to any of them." T h e Septuagint translated—erciGujLirijia (= a desirable object). T h e two verses are mentioned in an ancient Beraita of the Babylonian Talmud among fifteen cases where the legendary translators deliberately changed the original meaning (BT Megillah 9b). Although one may argue that the alteration in the Pentateuch translation could have been introduced in a later genera­ tion, and not necessarily by the original translators of the Pentateuch books, the testimony of the Beraita counting the two alterations among the few deliberate and original changes carries considerable weight. The third version of the libel, the one in which an ass-head rep­ resents the Jewish god, is recorded not only by Mnaseas but also by Apion (Jos. CA 11.80) and Damocritus (Suda, s.v. AajioKpixoq), an un­ known author w h o lived after the destruction of the Second Temple. The above analysis of the Idumean legend in Mnaseas suggests that it was the cursory transmission of the Idumean anecdote by Mnaseas himself which led to the spread of this version. H o w easily such a mistake could happen may be illustrated by Tertullian's arguments against the ass libel: in the same passage he deplores Tacitus for saying that "our G o d is an 'ass' head," and that "(the Jews) conse­ crated the likeness of a beast of this kind" (Apol. X V I . 1-3), only the later description reflecting properly Tacitus' statement (Hist. V.4.2). The ass head, then, is the latest version, and appeared first at the end of the third century BC. As Mnaseas was quoted by Apion (CA II. 112), the latter's version of the ass libel within the story of Antiochus IV's visit to the Temple seems to have been influenced by Mnaseas' Idumean story. Given the Egyptian contempt for donkeys (Plut. Is. et Os. 31.363 B-C), this extreme version was well suited to Apion's purpose of ridiculing the Jewish faith. H e would not have achieved the same effect on Greco-Egyptians of his generation, used to king and founder cults, with a statue of Moses seated on an ass. As for Damocritus, I have shown elsewhere that he drew from A p i o n . 19

20

19

F o r a survey o f the L X X translation for " a s s " in o t h e r verses, see N e h e r - B e r n h e i m (n. 2 above), p p . 1 1 3 - 1 6 . M o s t of t h e m a t e r i a l is, h o w e v e r , i r r e l e v a n t . See B. B a r - K o c h v a , " T h e Hellenistic B l o o d - L i b e l — I t s C o n t e n t s , S o u r c e s a n d T r a n s m i s s i o n , " Tarbiz, L X V (1996), p . 470ff. ( H e b r e w ) . 2 0

318

BEZALEL BAR-KOGHVA

3. T h e Mnaseas story and the Septuagint thus show that the late third century BC is the terminus ante quern for the invention of the Mosesass and the ass versions. W h e n and why were these two versions invented, and what were their sources of inspiration? O f the many theories proposed to explain the source of inspiration for the ass libel, all but one must be rejected because of philological, historical or chronological considerations. Noteworthy is the explanation pointing out a similarity between the tetragrammaton and the Egyptian word for an ass. T h e similarity is phonetically rather dubious, and 21

22

23

2 1

E.g., t h e verse in Z a c h a r i a h (9.9) a b o u t t h e M e s s i a h a r r i v i n g o n a n ass (sugg e s t e d b y N e h e r - B e r n h e i m [n. 2 a b o v e ] , p p . 107, 116; F e l d m a n [n. 2 a b o v e ] , p . 499) c o u l d h a r d l y h a v e b e e n k n o w n t o E g y p t i a n s in t h e 3 r d c e n t u r y B C ; t h e r e c a n n o t b e a n y c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e biblical story of B a l a a m a n d his ass (pace N e h e r B e r h e i m , p . 1 1 3 ; F e l d m a n , ibid.), n o r w i t h t h e n a m e H a m o r (= ass), t h e father of S h e c h e m ( G e n . 34.2), killed b y t h e Israelites (suggested b y J . H a l é v y , " L e culte d ' u n e lête d ' â n e , " Revue Sémitique [1903]); t h e l e g e n d c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n inspired b y t h e r e s e m b l a n c e b e t w e e n t h e G r e e k w o r d onos (= ass) a n d O n i a s (indicated b y A p i o n — CA 11.49), since t h e libel p r e c e d e d t h e e m i g r a t i o n of t h e O n i a d s t o E g y p t (pace A. B o u c h é - L e c l e r q , Histoire des Lagides [Paris 1907] vol. II, p . 5 8 n. 1); t h e suggested c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h t h e 'even shetiyah of t h e T e m p l e a r e t o o fanciful, a n d sees t h e origin of t h e libel in t h e visit of A n t i o c h u s I V t o t h e T e m p l e ( H . G r a e t z , " U r s p r u n g d e r zwei V e r l e u m d u n g e n g e g e n d a s J u d e n t h u m v o m Eselskultus u n d v o n d e r Lieblosigkeit g e g e n A n d e r s g l ä u b i g e , " Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, X X I [ 1 8 7 2 ] , 1 9 6 - 9 7 ; R . R ö s c h , " C a p u t a s i n u m : E i n e historische Studie," Theologische Studie und Kritiken, L V [ 1 8 8 2 ] , p . 5 2 3 ; M . F r i e d l ä n d e r , Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums [ Z ü r i c h 1 9 0 3 ] , p . 377ff.). T h e suggestion t h a t t h e p h r a s e Tr ha-qödesh (= t h e h o l y city) w a s c h a n g e d b y s o m e b o d y to ayir ha-qödesh (= t h e s a c r e d wild-ass, s u g g e s t e d b y E . G o l d s c h m i d t , " D i e I s r a e l - Q u e l l e n bei T a c i t u s , " Der Morgen, X I [ 1 9 3 5 / 6 ] , p p . 1 7 5 - 7 8 ) , a p a r t f r o m b e i n g a v e r y r e m o t e possibility, fails t o see t h a t t h e l e g e n d refers to a p a c k - a s s , o r s i m p l y a n ass, b u t n o t a wild ass. T h e identification of t h e J e w i s h G o d w i t h D i o n y s u s , w h i c h m a y suggest a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h D i o n y s u s ' ass, is k n o w n o n l y f r o m t h e R o m a n p e r i o d ( c o n t r a r y to P . P e r d r i z e t , " L e f r a g m e n t d e S a t y r o s sur les D e m e s d ' A l e x a n d r i e , " Revue des Études Anciennes, X I I [ 1 9 1 0 ] , p . 243ff. et al.). T h e r e a r e half a d o z e n o r m o r e o t h e r suggestions w h i c h a r e e v e n less a c c e p t a b l e (e.g., M . Z i p s e r , Des Flavius Josephus Werk "Ueber das hohe Alter des jüdischen Volkes gegen Apion" [ V i e n n a 1 8 7 1 ] , p p . 114—15; J . C . M ü l l e r , Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion [Basel 1 8 7 7 ] , p p . 2 5 8 - 5 9 et al.). First n o t e d b y S. B o c h a r t u s , Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturae ( L o n d o n 1662), vol. I I , p . 18. S e e also A. Pellegrini, D'una Abraxa Inedita ( B e r g a m o 1874), p . 17ff.; D . S i m o n s e n , " K l e i n i g k e i t e n " in: Festschrift Hermann Cohen (Berlin 1912), p . 2 9 8 ; I. H e i n e m a n n , " P o s e i d o n i o s ü b e r die E n t w i c k l u n g d e r j ü d i s c h e n R e l i g i o n , " Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, L X I I I (1919), p . 120 n . 1; A. J a c o b y , " D e r a n g e b l i c h e Eselkult d e r J u d e n u n d C h r i s t e n , " Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, X X I V (1926), p . 270ff., a n d m a n y o t h e r s . See, e.g., F e l d m a n (n. 2 a b o v e ) , p . 5 0 0 ; S t e r n (n. 15 a b o v e ) , vol. I, p . 9 8 . T h e w o r d " a s s " in classical E g y p t i a n , R a m s e s i t e a n d D e m o t i c is i'a'a\ in C o p c

2 2

2 3

319

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

24

there are also other arguments against such a connection. In any case, it does not explain the origin of the Moses-ass version, which seems to be the earlier of the two. T h e most acceptable explanation is the simplest: both versions originated, in one way or another, from the Egyptian Seth-Typhon traditions. This has been accepted by a good number of scholars. However, as the connection between the T y p h o n legends and the ass libel has not always been properly explained, and the process of development not yet established, a review of the links in the chain connecting the Egyptian and Jewish traditions will not be out of place here. Seth-Typhon, an old Egyptian deity, gradually became recognized in Pharaohnic Egypt, at least from the time of the Assyrian occupa­ tion (670 B C ) , as the "devil" or bad deity, the source of evils and misfortunes for the Egyptians (and their gods). T h e list of disasters brought about by Typhon include darkness, mass deaths, diseases and storms. H e was also regarded as the god of the wilderness and 25

26

27

tic—eio. T h e t e t r a g r a m m a t o n a p p e a r s first in a n i n s c r i p t i o n of A m a n h o t e p I I I a n d R a m s e s II as yhw. I n t h e A r a m a i c d o c u m e n t s from E l e p h a n t i n e it is yhw, a n d in Hecataeus—Iao (Diodorus 1.94.2; cf. J . C . G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism [ N a s h ­ ville 1 9 7 2 ] , p p . 3 0 - 3 1 ) . F o r a n E g y p t i a n e a r u s e d t o m a n y s h o r t w o r d s c o m p o s e d of vowels, t h e t w o w o r d s w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e s o u n d e d similar. O n e m i g h t ask, for e x a m p l e , h o w it w a s t h a t E g y p t i a n a n d H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n a u t h o r s d i d n o t explicitiy m e n t i o n it as e v i d e n c e for t h e ass libel (cf. t h e e t y m o l o g i e s for t h e n a m e I a o a c c o r d i n g to t h e B a b y l o n i a n a n d P h o e n i c i a n l a n g u a g e s b y V a r r o a n d H e r e n n i u s P h i l o — S t e r n , GLAJJ, vol. I, n o . 75ff; vol. I I , n o . 324). F u r t h e r m o r e , h a d such a similarity b e e n n o t e d b y E g y p t i a n s , t h e i r J e w i s h n e i g h b o r s w o u l d h a v e b e e n consistent in r e p l a c i n g t h e n a m e of t h e J e w i s h g o d b y t h e m a n y k n o w n s u b ­ stitutes ( " h e a v e n " , " t h e p l a c e " , etc.) H o w e v e r , t h e use of Iao b y E g y p t i a n J e w s is well d o c u m e n t e d from t h e P e r s i a n as well as from t h e H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n p e r i o d (see t h e references in S t e r n , GLAJJ, vol. I, p . 172). It w a s p r o b a b l y also w r i t t e n in t h e versions of t h e L X X c u r r e n t in t h e p e r i o d of t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e , t h e substitute kyrios b e i n g a C h r i s t i a n i n n o v a t i o n (see t h e s u m m a r y of t h e q u e s t i o n b y S. J e l l i c o e , The Septuagint and Modern Study [ O x f o r d 1 9 6 8 ] , p p . 2 7 0 - 2 ) . L a t e r m a g i c a l texts a r e irrelevant to t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e origin of t h e libel. Cf. G . J . Griffith, Plutarch, De hide et Osiride, (1970), p . 4 0 9 ; A. J a c o b y (n. 2 2 above), p . 2 7 1 , for t w o c o n t r a r y views. See, in several variations, F. E. M o v e r s , Die Phönizer (Bonn 1841), p . 2 9 7 ; M ü l l e r (n. 21 above), p . 2 6 3 ; F . S t ä h l i n , Der Antisemitismus des Altertums in seiner Entstehung und Entwicklung (Basel 1905), p p . 1 5 - 1 6 ; E d . M e y e r , Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (Stuttgart-Berlin 1 9 2 1 - 3 ) , vol. I I , p . 3 3 ; W . Bousset - H . G r e s s m a n n , Die Religion des Judentums in späthellenistischen Zeitalter ( T ü b i n g e n 1926), p . 76; V . T c h e r i k o v e r , Helle­ nistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia 1961), p . 3 6 5 ; N e h e r - B e r n h e i m (n. 2 above), p . 109ff.; G a b b a (n. 3 a b o v e ) , p p . 6 4 3 - 4 4 ; F e l d m a n (n. 3 a b o v e ) , p p . 5 0 0 - 5 0 1 . See H . T e V e l d e , Seth, God of Confusion (Leiden 1977), p p . 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 4 5 - 4 6 , 148-49. Op. cit., 9 1 - 4 , 118, 128. 2 4

2 5

3

2

2 6

27

320

BEZALEL BAR-KOCHVA

the nomads as well as of foreign countries and the aliens staying in Egypt, especially the Semites. H e was explicitly identified with Baal and other foreign deities. A n identification of Moses or the Jewish G o d with Typhon was thus only natural for the Egyptians, who were annually reminded by their Jewish neighbors about the stories of the Exodus. As clearly appears from the anti-Jewish accusations, the Egyptians were indeed well acquainted with the Exodus traditions and reversed them to defame the J e w s . T h e similarity of some of the plagues to the disasters brought about by Typhon, the god of wilderness and foreigners, was too evident to be ignored by the creative and hostile Egyptians. T y p h o n was frequently described as having the form or the skin of an ass, or as being disguised in the form of an ass, and also ap­ pears in art as a human figure carrying the head (or a mask) of an ass. Furthermore, the ass was regarded as one of his sacred animals and his mount. T h e ass was detested and ridiculed by the Egyp­ tians, in contrast to their veneration of other animals. N o w , the Jews claimed that there was no statue in their Temple, but they prohib­ ited gentiles from entering the shrine, and only the High Priest was allowed access to the "Holy of Holies". This secrecy might well have stimulated the creation of the libel: the statue of an ass, the most contemptible of animals, the god of evil, the mount of Moses-Typhon, was being secretly worshipped in that place most sacred to the Jewish people. There are indeed some sources indicating that Moses was at least connected, if not identified, with Typhon. A number of scholars quote a passage from Plutarch as direct (and the most important) evidence for the origin of the Moses-ass version in Typhon's legends. Things are, however, not so simple as they might appear. This is noted by Plutarch himself in the closing sentence of the passage: 28

29

30

31

32

33

But those who relate that Typhon's flight from the battle was made on the back of an ass and lasted for seven days, and that after he had 2 8

Op. ciL, 1 0 9 - 1 1 , 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 150. S e e op. ciL, 109, 1 1 9 - 2 0 , 124, 1 2 6 - 9 . S e e B a r - K o c h v a (n. 8 a b o v e ) , C h . I I . 3 . S e e Griffith (n. 2 4 a b o v e ) , p p . 4 0 9 - 1 0 , 4 1 2 , 4 1 8 ; T e V e l d e , op. ciL, p p . 8, 14, 2 6 . S e e e.g. Plut. Is. et Os. 3 6 2 F ff. S e e F r i e d l ä n d e r (n. 21 a b o v e ) , p . 3 7 6 ; G a b b a (n. 3 a b o v e ) , p . 6 4 3 ; F e l d m a n (n. 2 a b o v e ) , p . 4 9 9 . T h i s is stressed e s p . b y R ö s c h (n. 21 a b o v e ) , p . 523ff.; M . T . d e L i a g r e Böhl, Opera Minora ( G r o n i n g e n 1953), p . 125; T c h e r i k o v e r (n. 2 5 a b o v e ) , p . 3 6 5 . 2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

321

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

made his escape, he became the father of sons, Hierosolymus and Judaeus, are manifestly, as the very names show, attempting to drag Jewish traditions into the legend (Is. et Os. 31.363D). 34

The passage is evidently a combination of two traditions. T h e first belongs to the old Typhon mythology, the second is a fragment of an eponymic tradition about Moses, Judea and Jerusalem. T h e two were stitched together rather coarsely by a later author, and the reference to "seven days" would have been integrated as an indi­ cation of the origin of the Sabbath (cf. Tac. Hist. V.2.6; Pompeius Trogus, Ap. Justin X X X V L 2 . 1 4 ) . T h e date of this combination is any­ body's guess. As it stands, then, the passage is not in itself sufficient proof that the Moses-ass libel was initially based on the Typhon legend. It has some value, however, in our search for the sources of inspira­ tion, in showing that a story about Typhon finding refuge in the desert on an ass existed, and that an unknown author indeed strove to connect it with Moses. Another implied identification of Moses with Typhon can be found in Artapanus, a Jewish Egyptian author of the third or second cen­ tury BC. H e describes Moses as pyrrake (= fiery-red; Eus. PE. IX.37). Typhon's color was believed to be fiery-red (Diodorus 1.88.4-5; Plut. Is. et Os. 33.364B—pyrrochrous) This is not too surprising, since it is just one of the many astonishing statements in Artapanus' Jewish ethnography. It can be assumed that, drawing intensively on his Egyptian sources, he accepted the external description of Moses re­ gardless of its defamatory origin. In addition to Plutarch's passage, scholars have noted that a con­ nection between Moses and Typhon is reflected in Manetho's Aegyptiaca. It was written around 270 BC, and is therefore the oldest relevant reference. This piece of indirect evidence is well known, but since it is occasionally disputed, it deserves more elaboration. According to one story (CA 1.75-90 cf. CA 1.228), the "shepherds"— Hyksos, the invaders of Egypt, left the country, and after wandering in the desert, setded in Judea and founded the city of Jerusalem. This indicates an identification with the Jews. T h e Hyksos were de35

36

3 4

T h e t r a n s l a t i o n : F . C . B a b b i t t (LCL). F o r E g y p t i a n sources see M . R o c h e m o n t e x a n d E . C h a s s i n a t , Le temple d'Edfou ( 1 8 9 7 - 1 9 9 4 ) , vol. V I , p p . 2 1 9 - 1 3 . Suggested, in o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r , in a l m o s t all t h e references m e n t i o n e d in n. 25 a b o v e . 3 5

3 6

322

BEZALEL BAR-KOGHVA

37

scribed by the Egyptians as worshippers of Seth, and the connec­ tion of the "shepherds" with Typhon appears also in Manetho's story: after being repulsed from all regions of Egypt, they are said to have concentrated in the city of Avaris and fortified it (CA 1.87-90). Avaris was known in Egyptian tradition as the city of T y p h o n . Another story (CA 1.229-50) is presented by Manetho as taking place later. It recounts the revolt of the lepers employed as stone-quarry workers. Their leader was Osarseph, a priest of Heliopolis. T h e name is ob­ viously a combination of Osiris-Joseph, and toward the end of the story it is said that he changed his name to Moses. N o w the leperrebels found refuge in Avaris, the deserted city of the "shepherds". This time it is explicitly presented as the city which "according to the religious tradition, is Typhonian from the beginning" (para. 237). In pursuing their successful revolt they were supported by the "shep­ herds" w h o dwelt in the city called Jerusalem (241), the Solymitai (248), w h o came to their help. T h e Egyptian king and his followers found refuge in Ethiopia for thirteen years. Osarseph-Moses, the leader of the rebels, is said to have introduced laws and practices extremely hostile to the Egyptians, directed especially against Egyptian religion and cult ( 2 3 9 - 4 0 , 244, 2 4 8 - 5 0 ) , and ordered "that they should have contact with none (cruvaTixeaGoci 8e |ir|8ev{) save with their comrades to the oath" (239). T h e connection of Moses with Typhon is thus explicitly suggested in the second story, while the first may be taken to indicate a connection between the Jews and Typhon. It was once disputed whether Manetho was at all anti-Jewish, whether he had in mind the Jews, and whether the identification of Osarseph with Moses was not a later interpolation. T h e principal dispute now seems to be over, and most scholars agree that Manetho was anti-Jewish. There are no significant interpolations in Manetho's text, and in view of the contents of para. 239, there is little doubt that Osarseph indeed represents M o s e s . But were the anti-Jewish 38

39

40

3 7

T e V e l d e , op. cit., p . 1 2 1 , a n d n . 2. S e e T e V e l d e , p . 122, a n d n . 5 , o n t h e E g y p t i a n s o u r c e s a b o u t Avaris a n d S e t h , a n d see f u r t h e r b e l o w o n CA 1.237. M ü l l e r , FHG 11.514; E d . M e y e r , Aegyptische Chronologie (Berlin 1904), p p . 7 1 - 7 9 ; R . L a q u e u r , R E s.v. " M a n e t h o n " , col. 1 0 6 4 - 8 0 ; I. H e i n e m a n n , R E s.v. " A n t i ­ s e m i t i s m u s " , cols. 2 6 - 7 ; M . B r a u n , History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature ( O x f o r d 1938), p . 2 7 ; J a c o b y , FGrH I I I C , p . 8 4 ; W . G . W a d d e l l , Manetho: with an English Translation ( L o n d o n - C a m b r i d g e [ M a s s . ] 1940), p p . X V I I - X I X (LCL); G a g e r (n. 2 3 a b o v e ) , p . 117; G a b b a (n. 3 a b o v e ) , p p . 6 3 3 - 3 4 . S e e e s p . T c h e r i k o v e r (n. 2 5 a b o v e ) , p p . 3 6 1 - 6 4 ; F r a s e r (n. 16 above), vol. I, 3 8

3 9

4 0

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

323

elements in the story additions by Manetho (namely products of the first-second generation of the Hellenistic period in Egypt), or were they taken from earlier generations? T h e first story (CA 1.75-90) as indicated by Josephus, was taken from "sacred books", i.e. old priesdy sources (1.73). Although it combines knowledge about the "shepherds" with the departure of the Israelites, the story is not a compilation, and it presents a unity. As it stands, it is sufficient to show that a connection between the Jews (the other foreign elements w h o stayed in Egypt) with Typhon was assumed by Egyptian priests long before Manetho. As for the second story (CA 1.229-50), Josephus (possibly following a statement by Manetho) states that it belonged to "fables and current reports about the Jews" (jiuGeuofxeva m i Xeyojieva), and not taken from the Egyptian "sacred books". This indicates a mix­ ture of old traditions with current rumors. T h e story is indeed a mixture of at least two tales. O n the basis of this story it can be said that a special relationship between Osarseph-Moses and T y p h o n (in contrast to his hostility toward other Egyptian gods) was accepted by Egyptian priests at least by the time of Manetho, in the first quarter of the third century BC. T h e anti-Jewish allegations in this story can be traced back even earlier. The tendency of Egyptians in the Persian period to connect their enemies with Typhon is well illustrated by the Egyptian identification of Cambyses with Seth, and the story that Artaxerxes III Ochus (who occupied Egypt in 338 BC) killed Apis and deified an ass in order to punish the Egyptians (Aelianus, Nat. Anim. X . 2 8 ; cf. Plut. Is. et Os. 31.363C). Egyptian Jews cooperated with the Persian oppres­ sors, and religious tension between Jews and Egyptians was unavoid­ able in that as in other periods. In light of all this, would it be rash to suggest that the identification of Moses and the Jewish G o d with 41

42

43

p . 5 0 9 ; A. K a s h e r , " T h e p r o p a g a n d a p u r p o s e s of M a n e t h o ' s libellous story a b o u t t h e b a s e origin of t h e J e w s " [ H e b r e w ] , in B . O d e d et at. (edd.), Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, vol. I l l (Haifa 1974), p p . 6 9 - 8 4 ; S t e r n (GIAJJ), vol. I, p p . 6 3 - 6 4 ; H . C o n z e l m a n n , H e i d e n - J u d e n - C h r i s t e n ( T u b i n g e n 1981), p p . 78-79. T h e u n i t y of t h e story a p p e a r s , i.a., from t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p r e c a u t i o n s t a k e n b y t h e H y k s o s against t h e Assyrians, first in E g y p t ( p a r a . 77), a n d l a t e r in J e r u s a l e m (para. 90). O n e m a y a r g u e for a c o m p i l a t i o n o n t h e basis of t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Avaris in p a r a . 8 6 , after d e s c r i b i n g its r e b u i l d i n g in p a r a . 7 8 . H o w e v e r , p a r a s . 7 5 82 a r e a q u o t a t i o n from M a n e t h o , p a r a s . 8 5 - 9 0 — o n l y a p a r a p h r a s e . J o s e p h u s stresses in p a r a . 8 7 — x o w o v <pr|aiv 6 Mctve0co<;—which obviously goes b a c k t o p a r a . 7 8 . F o r further c o n s i d e r a t i o n s see B a r - K o c h v a (n. 8 above) C h . I L L See B a r - K o c h v a (n. 8 a b o v e ) , C h . I I I . 3 . See E . D r i o t o n , P a g e s d ' E g y p t o l o g i e ( C a i r o 1957), p p . 3 0 7 - 2 7 . 4 1

4 2

4 3

324

BEZALEL

BAR-KOGHVA

T y p h o n originated before the third century, in Egypt of the Persian period? Could the same not be suggested regarding the connection of Moses and the Jewish god with ass-riding and ass-cult respectively? T h e version with Moses seated on an ass could have drawn some inspiration from Jewish traditions as well. Without the identification of Moses with Typhon, however, these traditions by themselves would not have been sufficient to create the slander that such a statue was worshipped in the Temple. Apart from the stories about the wander­ ing of the Israelites in the desert, Moses is also said to have once escaped from Pharaoh to the desert (Ex. 2.15). The ass was the regular riding and pack animal for people in Egypt and its deserts (rather than the horse or the camel). T h e Torah relates how Moses once put his wife and children on an ass in the desert (Ex. 4.20). Similar inspiration could have been drawn from oral or written traditions about the Exodus which were circulating among Egyptian Jews. The existence of such Midrashim is attested (though for a later period) by the tragedy on the Exodus written by the poet Ezekiel and by the unique version of the T e n Plagues by the author of Sapientia Salomonis (chs. 16-19). A typological parallel to the role of asses in Exodus Midrashim is presented by a Midrash in the Babylonian Talmud. T h e Talmud dis­ cusses the question why of all unclean animals, only first-born asses have to be redeemed and should not be used for work (Ex. 13.13). T h e law of the first-born appears in the Pentateuch subsequent to the Passover regulations, and is explained by the plague of the first­ born: those w h o were not killed have to be redeemed in the future (Ex. 13.11-15; esp. 15). T h e question is, therefore, why the asses were also spared. T h e Talmud answers: 44

F o r t h e y (the asses) s u p p o r t e d Israel in t h e time of the E x o d u s , for t h e r e w a s n o t e v e n o n e in Israel w h o did n o t take with h i m ninety L y b i a n asses l o a d e d with the silver a n d gold of Egypt (BT B e r a k h o t 5 b ) .

As we can see, the Midrash actually applies to his purposes an­ other biblical verse: "And the Israelites had done as Moses had told them, asking the Egyptians for jewellery of silver and gold and for c l o t h i n g . . . in this way they plundered the Egyptians" (Ex. 12.35-6; cf. 11.2). This Midrash, late though it is, demonstrates how stories

4 4

S e e E n c y c l o p a e d i a Biblica ( J e r u s a l e m 1 9 5 5 - 8 2 ) , s.v. " C a m e l " , . . . " D o n k e y " , "Horse".

AN ASS IN THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE

325

connecting asses with the Exodus events could be invented. O n e would expect Egyptian Jews, w h o studied these verses and others, to have created similar explanations and midrashim. Their Egyptian neighbors would hardly have disregarded such stories, celebrating as they did the exploitation of the Egyptians by the Israelites. T h e pil­ laging of the Egyptians is indeed mentioned by Manetho (CA 1.249). After the creation and development of the ass libel, these other in­ terpretations were obviously suppressed and disappeared. This is probably why we do not find more of them.

4. T o tie up the ends, here is a summary of the main conclusions: the version with Moses seated on a pack-ass seems to be the most an­ cient. It was mainly inspired by the Egyptian identification of Moses with Typhon, perhaps drawing some support from marginal Jewish Exodus traditions. It may well have appeared first in the Persian period. At a certain stage, certainly by the third century B C , Moses was "removed" from the pack-ass, which was itself now identified with the Jewish god. T h e identification was inspired by the inevi­ table equation of the Jewish god with Typhon. This version appeared in the original Idumean tale, adapted by Mnaseas. Over time, the pack-ass turned into an ass. T h e third version, the ass-head, arose from a negligent adaptation by Mnaseas of the Idumean-Egyptian story: the reference to the taking of the head was understood to mean that the head of an ass alone represented the Jewish god. The three versions circulated in parallel form in the second cen­ tury BC. The Seleucid propagandist w h o composed the story about the visit of Antiochus IV to the Temple preferred the Moses-ass ver­ sion since it served his purpose better. This version reached Posidonius of Apamea and Apollonius Molon through their source for the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus Sidetes. Apion replaced it with the asshead version, known to him from Mnaseas, which accorded with his ends. T h e same version was also recorded by Damocritus, w h o drew from Apion. Plutarch and Tacitus (ass statue) drew on sources ulti­ mately dependent on the pre-Mnasean version.

326

BEZALEL BAR-KOCHVA

T h e T r a n s m i s s i o n of the "Ass" Libel

M o s e s S e a t e d o n a n Ass (Egypt: Persian Period)

T h e J e w i s h G o d in the F o r m of a n Ass (Egypt: Persian Period)

T h e I d u m e a n Story (Egypt: c. 250 BC)

Ass H e a d (Mnaseas: 200 BC)

T h e O r i g i n a l Story of T h e Visit of A n t i o c h u s I V E p i p h a n e s to t h e t e m p l e (Seleucid C o u r t H i s t o r i a n , Syria: c. 164 BC)

T i m o c h a r e s : c. 130 B C

Apollonius M o l o n

Posidonius Apion Diodorus Tacitus

Plutarch Damocritus

JOSEPHUS' A C C O U N T OF T H E TEMPLE IN CONTRA APIONEM 2 . 1 0 2 - 1 0 9 RICHARD

BAUGKHAM

University of St. Andrews

1. Introduction Josephus provides our most reliable and most extensive evidence about the Jerusalem temple in the middle decades of the first century C E — on both the physical features of the temple as reconstructed by Herod and on the practice of the priests in the temple in this period. While much attention has been given to the material about the temple in the War and in the Antiquities, the evidence of the Contra Apionem has been largely neglected. T h e latter, however, includes some extremely interesting references to the temple, its priests and its practices ( 1 . 2 9 36; 2.76-77, 1 0 2 - 1 0 9 , 119, 1 8 5 - 1 8 7 , 193-198). T h e present chapter is a detailed investigation of the longest of these passages (102-109), which offers a number of points of detailed information about the temple not precisely paralleled elsewhere. Virtually every statement of Josephus in this passage, however, raises problems of interpreta­ tion or of consistency with information elsewhere in Josephus or in other sources. These problems require thorough discussion before the value and reliability of this passage for our knowledge of the temple can be accepted. T h e general result will be to show that, although the Contra Apionem is Josephus' last work, he retained, from his close association with the temple in his youth, a thorough knowledge of the temple which makes him even thirty years later a generally trust­ worthy witness. At the same time, the apologetic purpose of this passage has to be understood if it is to be read accurately. Finally, however closely Josephus may have depended on sources in other 1

1

F o r listing a n d discussion of l i t e r a t u r e o n J o s e p h u s o n t h e t e m p l e a n d t h e priest­ h o o d , see L. H . F e l d m a n , Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin/New Y o r k : d e G r u y t e r , 1984) 4 3 7 - 4 4 4 , 9 3 8 - 9 3 9 . It is striking h o w little r e f e r e n c e s u c h literature m a k e s to t h e Contra Apionem. P. G r i i n b a u m , Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius Josephus (dissertation, H a l l e , 1887), d o e s n o t d e a l w i t h t h e issues in Contra Apionem 2 . 1 0 2 - 1 0 9 .

328

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

parts of the Contra Apionem, it will become clear that he composed this passage himself.

2. Introduction to Contra Apionem

2.102-109

In the Contra Apionem Josephus is engaged in a defence of Judaism and the Jews against anti-Jewish accounts by pagan writers. T h e passage with which we are concerned is part of his refutation of a story told by Apion about Antiochus Epiphanes' entry into the temple. According to the story Antiochus found in the temple a Greek, re­ clining at table before a sumptuous feast. T h e man said that he had been kidnapped and imprisoned in the temple, where he was lav­ ishly fed. Eventually he learned from the servants who fed him that he was to be the victim of a Jewish law which required that once a year they should sacrifice and eat a Gentile (CA 2.91-96). After gen­ eral criticisms of the plausibility of the story (CA 2.97-102), Josephus proceeds to refute it by reference to the facts—which turn out to be facts about the temple. H e argues that the strict purity rules govern­ ing admission to the courts of the temple and the temple building make it unthinkable that a Greek would have been taken into the temple. H e points out that no vessels not belonging to the temple could be taken into it, and that no food or drink, other than those specifically authorized for sacrifice by the temple authorities, could be taken into the temple, so that there was no way the Greek could have been sumptuously fed within the temple for a year. H e argues that the temple was under the close supervision of the priests, who served in rotation, such that in the course of a year many thousands of priests would have had to know about the Greek, had he been in the temple. What Josephus says about the temple is thus carefully selected to serve his apologetic purpose of refuting Apion's slander. In order to discuss his information in detail, we shall divide it into four sections:

3. The courts of the temple and their restrictions on entry Sciunt igitur omnes qui uiderunt constructionem templi nostri, qualis fierit, et intransgressibilem eius purificationis integritatem. Quattuor etenim habuit in circuitu porticus, et harum singulae propriam secundum

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

329

legem habuere custiodiam; in exteriorem itaque ingredi licebat om­ nibus etiam alienigenis; mulieres tantummodo menstruatae transire prohibebantur. In secunda uero porticu cuncti Iudaei ingrediebantur eorumque coniuges, cum essent ab omni pollutione mundae, in tertia masculi Iudaeorum mundi existentes atque purificati, in quartam autem sacerdotes stolis induti sacerdotalibus, in adytum uero soli principes sacerdotum propria stola circumamicti (CA 2.102-104). All who have seen our temple's construction know what it was like and the inviolable purity of its holiness. For it had four courts sur­ rounding it, and each of these according to the law had its own pro­ tection. All, even foreigners, were allowed to enter the outer court; only menstruant women were prohibited from passing through it. But all Jews entered the second court, as did also their wives, when the latter were uncontaminated by any defilement. Male Jews who were clean and purified entered the third court. Priests robed in their priestly vest­ ments entered the fourth court. But only the high priests, clad in their own special vestments, entered the sanctuary [i.e. the holy of holies]. Josephus' concern here is to show how impossible it would have been for Antiochus to have found a Greek in the inner part of the temple, since strict rules, of increasing restrictiveness as one approached the holiest part of the temple, governed admittance to the temple's vari­ ous courts. His account of the rules is similar to his earlier account in the War: The whole city was closed to persons with a discharge (yovoppoioK;) and to lepers, while the temple was closed to women during menstrua­ tion. Even when pure, women were not permitted to pass the bound­ ary to which we referred above [i.e. the wall between the Court of the Women and the Court of the Israelites, cf. Bell. 5.199]. As for men, those not completely purified were excluded from the inner court, and even those of the priests who were undergoing purification were ex­ cluded {Bell. 5.227). This passage from the War goes on (5.228-236) to explain that the Court of the Priests was entered even by priests w h o were disquali­ fied by physical blemish from officiating and from wearing the priesdy vestments, but only officiating priests, wearing their vestments, went up to the altar and the sanctuary (vocov)—meaning here the first part of the sanctuary building, the holy place (cf. also Ant. 3.278). Only the high priest, once a year, wearing his high-priesdy vestments, en­ tered the holy of holies (OCSDTOV, as in CA 2.104: adytum). The passage in the War gives a little more detail, including the purity rules restricting entry to Jerusalem itself, which was not relevant to Josephus' purpose in CA, but otherwise the two passages agree.

330

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

T h e y are sufficiently different to make it quite clear that Josephus in CA has not copied his own earlier work, but had these rules very firmly and clearly in his mind, as we would expect of a man who spent his early years in Jerusalem as a member of a priestly family. A well-known passage in the Mishnah (m. Kel. 1.6-9) gives a somewhat different account of the rules. It specifies ten degrees of holiness, extending from the land of Israel, which is holier than any other lands, to the holy of holies, which is the holiest place of all. W e need only notice the rules restricting admission of persons on grounds of purity. Lepers are excluded from all the walled cities of Israel. From the temple mount (the so-called Court of the Gentiles) were excluded m e n and w o m e n with a discharge (in biblical and rabbinic terminology 0*0? and rfOf), menstruants and parturients (women impure through childbirth). From the terrace (*7TT, i.e. the area immediately inside the barrier which prohibited Gentile entrance and enclosed the sacred area proper) were excluded Gentiles and people with corpse-impurity. From the Court of the W o m e n was excluded anyone w h o had immersed himself that day (i.e. had not completed his purification which required both immersion and wait­ ing till sunset). From the Court of the Israelites was excluded anyone whose atonement was incomplete (i.e. someone who had purified himself by waiting the specified period and by immersion, but had not yet offered the sacrifice required [cf. Lev. 15.13-15]). From the Court of the Priests, lay Israelites were excluded except when taking part in sacrifices. From the area between the altar and the porch (of the sanctuary building) were excluded priests with a physical blemish or whose hair was unloosed. From the holy place were excluded priests w h o had not washed hands and feet. From the holy of holies were excluded all save the high priest on the day of atonement. (The Mishnah, of course, takes for granted that w o m e n may not pass beyond the Court of the W o m e n , but does not mention this, per­ haps because it is not strictly a matter of purity: w o m e n are not regarded as intrinsically less pure than men.) 2

3

Josephus and the Mishnah share the general concept of degrees of purity which increase as one nears the holy of holies, and agree on several details, such as the restriction on priests with a physical 2

S o m . K e l . 1.6. I n fact, c o u n t i n g inclusively, t h e r e a r e eleven. T h e t e r m C o u r t of t h e G e n t i l e s , t h o u g h c o n v e n i e n t , is a m o d e r n t e r m , n o t u s e d in a n t i q u i t y . It is p o t e n t i a l l y m i s l e a d i n g if it suggests t h a t t h e c o u r t w a s positively i n t e n d e d for G e n t i l e use. 3

331

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

blemish (in both cases corresponding to Lev. 21.21-23). However, there are significant differences. In principle, Josephus' account should be preferred. T h e differences are likely to represent different inter­ pretations of the biblical purity laws (note that in CA 2.103 Josephus claims that the rules he reports are based on the Torah—secundum legem). Josephus' account must reflect the interpretation of these laws followed—and no doubt enforced—by the temple authorities, while the Mishnah reflects rabbinic interpretation. The most important differences between Josephus and the Mish­ nah are four, though the third, as we shall see, may be more appar­ ent than real. T h e first two differences concern admission to the city and to the Court of the Gentiles: (1) T h e Mishnah excludes only lepers from the city, whereas Josephus excludes also zavim and zavot, whom the Mishnah excludes only from the Court of the Gentiles. (2) From the Court of the Gentiles the Mishnah excludes (besides zavim and zavot) both menstruants and parturients, whereas Jose­ phus excludes only menstruants. T h e second difference might be ex­ plained as Josephus' abbreviation of the rules, but in CA 2.103 he is quite specific that only menstruants are excluded from the Court of the Gentiles. Since the first point is an irreconcilable difference, we should see the second point also as a real difference. Leviticus 13.46 provided a clear basis on which both Josephus and the Mishnah agree in excluding lepers from the city. In debar­ ring three kinds of people with impurity (zavim and zavot, menstruants, and parturients) from the Court of the Gentiles, the Mishnah is consistent with the way it groups these three categories of impurity together elsewhere (m. Pesah. 9.4; m. M o e d Qat. 3.2; m. Ker. 2.1; m. Zabim 5.6). Probably the impurity of the parturient was treated as analogous to that of the menstruant on the basis of Leviticus 12.2, 5. However, the way the rules reported by Josephus distin­ guish the z^vim and zavot (excluded from the city), the menstruant 4

5

c

6

4

J . J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (tr. F . H . a n d C . H . G a v e ; L o n d o n : S C M Press, 1969), 3 7 3 , a p p a r e n t l y thinks this. S o also 4 Q M M T B 6 4 - 6 6 . 1 1 Q T 48.14—17 also classifies p a r t u r i e n t s a l o n g w i t h zavim, zavot a n d m e n s t r u a n t s , a n d goes further t h a n t h e M i s h n a h in e x c l u d i n g all t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , a l o n g w i t h lepers, from all t h e cities of Israel. F o r Q u m r a n halakhah w i t h r e g a r d t o zavim, zavot a n d m e n s t r u a n t s , see also 4 Q 2 7 4 , discussed i n j . M . B a u m g a r t e n , " Z a b I m p u r i t y i n Q u m r a n a n d R a b b i n i c L a w , " J J S 4 5 (1994) 2 7 3 - 2 7 7 ; idem, " T h e L a w s a b o u t F l u x e s in 4 Q T o h o r o t ( 4 Q 2 7 4 ) , " in D . D i m a n t a n d L. H . Schiffman ed., Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness ( S T D J 16; L e i d e n : Brill, 1995) 1-8. 5

6

a

332

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

(excluded from the Court of the Gentiles), and the parturient (excluded only from the Court of the Women), is intelligible as interpretation of the Torah. In Leviticus 1 5 . 2 - 1 5 , 1 9 - 3 0 , it is clear that the zav, the zavah, and the menstruant all have highly contagious forms of impurity. T h e presence of these people in the Court of the Gentiles would imperil the purity of other people entering the temple. But the account of the parturient in Leviticus 12.2-8 does not explicitly treat her impurity as contagious. T h e rabbis treated it as such, by analogy, but the rules followed by the temple authorities evidendy adopted a more literal interpretation. T h e fact that the zoo (Lev. 15.14—15) and the zavah (Lev. 15.29-30) are required to offer sacrifice on the eighth day, following the seven days of their purification, unlike the menstruant, but like the leper (Lev. 14.8-10), makes it readily intelligible that the rules reported by Josephus classify the zav and zavah with the leper, excluded from the city, but treat the impurity of the menstruant less seriously. (In any case, to have excluded menstruants from Jerusalem would have been hopelessly impracticable.) T h e interpretation of the Torah underlying the rules restricting entry to the temple, which Josephus reports, need not be precisely the same as Josephus' own interpretation of the law, but the latter, in Ant. 3.261, is certainly relevant. Probably Josephus is here inter­ preting Numbers 5.2~3, according to which three categories of impure people are to be excluded from the camp: lepers, zavim and zavot, and people with corpse-impurity. Josephus takes "the camp" to be "the city" (Jerusalem or all Jewish cities?), and reports that Moses banished lepers, zavim and zavot from it. This accords with Bell. 5.227, and should be noted as an instance where Josephus' own halakhah in the Antiquities agrees with that of the chief priests rather than with that later codified in the Mishnah. Josephus then says, rather am­ biguously, that menstruants and people with corpse-impurity Moses removed (ixexeaxfioe) from society for seven days. If this means that they were also excluded from the city, then Josephus has added menstruants, by analogy, to the three categories in the text, and must be thinking in purely ideal terms, rather than of the practice of his time. More probably, he means only that menstruants and those with corpse-impurity must avoid contact with people. 7

Corpse-impurity, though also contagious (Num. 19.22), may have been regarded, by those w h o framed the rules restricting entry to 7

So 4 Q M M T B 2 9 - 3 3 , 5 9 - 6 2 .

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

333

the temple, as less seriously so than menstrual impurity. But this brings us to the third difference between Josephus and the Mishnah. T h e two texts in Josephus, especially CA 2.104, appear to say that, while the only Jewish w o m e n admitted to the Court of the W o m e n were those free of any impurity, impure Jewish m e n (excepting only lepers and zavim) could enter the Court of the W o m e n and were prohibited only from the Court of the Israelites. T h e Mishnah, on the other hand, excludes people with corpse-impurity from the terrace and anyone with any impurity at all from the Court of the W o m e n . Josephus' apparent meaning is very surprising. It seems to attribute the same degree of purity to a pure w o m a n and to an impure man. (This would be comparable with allowing impure priests into the Court of the Israelites, which Josephus explicitly does not do.) More­ over, the Torah would surely have been understood to exclude m e n with corpse-impurity (Num. 19.13, 20) and men with semen-impurity (Lev. 15.31) from the temple. Josephus' apparent meaning could be correct only if the Court of the W o m e n were understood to be, like the Court of the Gentiles, not part of the sacred precincts proper. This is possible, but it seems more likely that Josephus did not really mean to say that impure men could enter the Court of the W o m e n . H e has stated his point misleadingly because he has attached the purity requirements for w o m e n and men to their ability to enter the court they normally went to. M e n did not normally stay in the Court of the W o m e n , but passed through it to the Court of the Israelites. In that case, Josephus is in broad agreement with the Mishnah. The Mishnah's distinctions between the purity required to enter the terrace, the Court of the W o m e n and the Court of the Israelites may well be merely the result of the rabbis' desire to define further degrees of holiness. T h e historical situation may have been the sim­ ple one that no one with any impurity could pass the barrier which enclosed the sacred area. The fourth difference between Josephus and the Mishnah is that the latter makes an exception to the rule that non-priests were not al­ lowed into the Court of the Priests: they did enter "when they must perform the laying on of hands, slaughtering, and waving" (m. Kel. 1.8). This may be based not on historical memory but on deduction 8

8

T h i s is w h a t E . P . S a n d e r s , Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE ( L o n d o n : S C M Press, 1992) 1 1 3 , a s s u m e s w i t h o u t a r g u m e n t , a n d w i t h o u t p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t n o n e of t h e texts actually say this.

334

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

from the text of Scripture. T h e Torah requires the offerers of certain sacrifices to perform these actions (Lev. 1.4; 3.2, 8; 4.29, 33; 7.30), and since sacrifice took place in the Court of the Priests, the rabbis assumed the offerers must have entered the court in order to perform these parts of the ritual. Josephus agrees that an individual offering a burnt-offering killed it himself (Ant. 3.226), though Philo contradicts this (Spec. Leg. 1.198-199; 2.145-146). Sanders suggests that, since the parapet that separated the Court of the Israelites and the Court of the Priests was only 1 8 - 2 0 inches high (Bell. 5.226), offerers per­ formed these actions while standing in the Court of the Israelites and leaning over the parapet. Alternatively, Josephus may have omitted the detail that laymen were allowed into the Court of the Priests for the purpose of taking part in their own sacrifices, though not other­ wise. W e do not have sufficient information to resolve this point. 9

4. The shifts of the priests Tanta uero est circa omnia prouidentia pietatis, ut secundum quasdam horas sacerdotes ingredi constitutum sit; mane etenim aperto templo oportebat facientes traditas hostias introire et meridie rursus, dum clauderetur templum (CA 2.105). So great is the careful forethought concerning all matters that it is laid down that the priests enter at specific hours. For their duty was to enter in the morning when the temple was opened, in order to offer the sacrifices which are traditional, and again at midday, until the tem­ ple was closed. This might mean that two successive watches of priests divided a day's duties between them, the first coming on duty in the early morn­ ing w h e n the temple was opened and the morning burnt-offering was offered, the second taking over from them at midday and con­ tinuing until evening when the temple closed, after the afternoon burnt-offering. But according to m. T a m i d 1.1-2 the watch of priests responsible for the morning burnt-offering spent the night in some of the rooms built into the wall around the inner court of the Temple (the Court of the Israelites and the Court of the Priests). According to the Mishnah, they entered the inner court (by a small gate) and prepared for the burnt-offering and the incense offering some time

9

S a n d e r s , Judaism,

107, 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 .

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

335

before the great eastern gate of the inner court was opened to let lay worshippers in, but this scarcely really contradicts Josephus' vague expression that they entered when the temple was opened. Moreover it is confirmed by Bell 6.299, where Josephus speaks of priests enter­ ing the inner court of the temple by night. H e must mean: in the early hours before dawn, in order to prepare for the burnt-offering. So it may be that each watch of priests spent twenty-four hours in the temple, coming on duty at midday, sleeping overnight in the temple, and handing over to the next watch at midday the following day. Alternatively, one watch entered the temple w h e n it closed in the evening, and at midday handed over to another, which then served until the temple closed that evening. T h e only problem for either of these reconstructions is m. T a m i d 5.3, according to which the vestments of priests w h o had not been chosen by lot to officiate at the morning burnt-offering or incense-offering were removed from them at that point, because they would not now be needing them. One would expect such priests to stay in order to sacrifice offerings brought by individuals during the rest of the morning. So it may be that the Mishnah envisages one watch handing over to another immediately after the morning burnt-offering, but, if so, we should prefer Josephus' account. His clear statement that priests entered the temple at morning and midday makes it unlikely that there were more than two shifts. 10

5. Objects in the temple Denique nec uas aliquod portari licet in templum, sed erant in eo solummodo posita altare mensa turibulum candelabrum, quae omnia et in lege conscripta sunt. Etenim nihil amplius neque mysteriorum aliquorum ineffabilium agitur neque intus ulla epulatio ministratur (CA 2.106-107). Finally, no vessel whatever is allowed to be carried into the temple, but in it were placed only an altar, a table, a censer, and a lampstand, all of which are also referred to in the law. There was certainly nothing more; no unmentionable mysteries take place; no feast is served inside. Josephus, we should remember, is responding to the claim that Antiochus found in the temple a man reclining on a couch before a table 10

Against S a n d e r s , Judaism, 117. H i s s t a t e m e n t , " D u r i n g t h e m o r n i n g service t h e n e w w a t c h of priests c a m e in, a n d o n e of t h e p r a y e r s w a s for t h e m (Tamid 5.1),"

336

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

on which a sumptuous banquet was laid (CA 2.91). In response, he asserts that no vessel (such as would be needed to convey the food and drink for such a banquet) was permitted to be brought into the temple, which in fact contained only four items of furniture. In the list of these four items, turibulum must translate Gujuiarnpiov. Both words normally mean "censer", but the latter was used, not in the L X X but in other Jewish Greek writers, to refer to the altar of in­ cense in the tabernacle and the temple (Josephus, Bell. 5.216, 218; Ant 3.147, 198; H e b . 9.4; Philo, Mos. 2.94; Rer. Div. Her. 226). The altar (altare) must therefore be the altar of burnt-offering. Josephus refers to one object in the Court of the Priests (the altar of burntoffering) and three objects in the holy place (the table of shewbread, the altar of incense, and the lampstand). All these are mentioned, as he says, in the account of the tabernacle in the Torah (Ex. 2 5 . 2 3 40; 2 7 . 1 - 8 ; 30:1-10). It follows that templum in this passage does not, as Thackeray's note suggests, refer only to the temple building (the vot6<;), which contained the holy place and the holy of holies, but includes the Court of the Priests. It would be astonishing if Josephus thought there was another altar besides the altar of incense within the holy place. H e may never have entered it, but its contents were extremely well known, and he himself describes them accurately in Bell. 5.216 (\v%viav xparce^ocv 0u^iaxr|piov). Since there do not seem to have been any items of furniture in the Court of the Israelites or the Court of the W o m e n (though the chambers and storerooms in these courts may well have contained some), templum probably refers to the whole of the properly sacred area, within the enclosure, ex­ cluding only the outer court (the so-called Court of the Gentiles). If we assume that Josephus was intending to enumerate only large items of furniture, was he correct in stating that the temple con­ tained only these four? T h e Torah, to which he refers for corrobation, in fact adds two others: the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (Ex. 25.10-22), and the laver (or basin), which stood between the 11

s e e m s t o b e in e r r o r . M . T a r n . 5.1 says t h a t o n t h e S a b b a t h a n a d d i t i o n a l b e n e d i c ­ tion w a s said for t h e o u t g o i n g c o u r s e of priests. T h i s is b e c a u s e o n t h e S a b b a t h o n e of t h e t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s , w h i c h h a d officiated for t h e p r e v i o u s w e e k , h a n d e d o v e r t o t h e n e x t c o u r s e . T h e s t a t e m e n t d o e s n o t tell us a t w h a t t i m e after t h e m o r n i n g burnt-offering the outgoing course h a n d e d over to the incoming course. F o r t h e objects i n t h e t e m p l e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e T e m p l e Scroll, w h i c h basically follows E x o d u s , see L. H . S c h i f l m a n , " T h e F u r n i s h i n g s of t h e T e m p l e A c c o r d i n g to t h e Temple Scroll" i n J . T r e b o l l e B a r r e r a a n d L . V e g a s M o n t a n e r ed., The Madrid Qumran Congress, vol. 2 ( S T D J 1 1 / 2 ; L e i d e n : B r i l l / M a d r i d : E d i t o r i a l C o m p l u t e n s e , 1992) 6 2 1 - 6 3 4 . 11

337

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

altar of burnt-offering and the holy place (Ex. 30:17-21). Since Josephus is writing for Gentiles w h o have not read the Torah, he need not here explain that there was no ark in the second temple, whose holy of holies was completely empty (Bell. 5.219). But the laver is problematic. Josephus, in his account of the tabernacle in the wilder­ ness, describes the laver, following Exodus (Ant. 3.114), but makes no mention of a laver in either of his accounts of Herod's temple (Bell. 5.184-226; Ant. 15.391-402). T h e Mishnah, however, places a laver in the temple, between the altar and the porch (m. Midd. 3.6), i.e. in the same place as the Torah places it in the tabernacle. W e might suppose the Mishnah's laver to be entirely fictional, deriving from biblical precedent rather than historical memory, were it not for the information (given in m. Y o m . 3.10; m. Tarn. 3.8) that Ben Katin made specific improvements to the laver, information that is hard to understand except as a historical memory. If the laver was used for the purpose which the Mishnah attributes to it—for washing of hands and feet before ascending the ramp to the altar of burnt-offering (m. Yom. 4.5; m. Tarn. 1.4; 2.1; following Ex. 3 0 . 1 9 - 2 1 ) — t h e n it must have been in the Court of the Priests. Perhaps Josephus failed to mention it in CA 2.106 because he thought of it as a fixture, rather than an item of movable furniture. According to the Mishnah, there were other items of furniture in the temple to which Josephus does not refer: two tables in the porch, one of marble and one of gold, on which the shewbread was laid when it was being brought into and taken out of the holy place (m. Sheqal. 6.4; m. Men. 11.7); eight marble tables, on which the priests flayed the sacrificial animals, placed in the shambles area in the Court of the Priests (m. Sheqal. 6.4; m. Tarn. 3.5; m. Midd. 3.5); and two tables, one of marble and one of silver, near the altar of burnt-offering, used respectively for parts of the offering and for vessels (m. Sheqal. 6.4). These tables may be pardy based on bib­ lical precedent (Ezek. 40.39-43), and their historicity may be doubted. O n the other hand, Josephus himself refers to golden tables, only one of which could be the table of shewbread in the holy place, which were handed over to the Romans during the siege of Jerusa­ lem (Bell. 5.388). It is possible that these were not in regular use, but brought out for special purposes at festivals. 12

If Josephus' accuracy may therefore just about be saved thus far, 12

O t h e r references t o t h e l a v e r a r e in m . Y o m . 4 . 5 ; m . Sukk. 4 . 1 0 ; m . Sot. 2.2; m . T a r n . 1.4; 2 . 1 .

338

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

the impression his words give that there were no vessels in the temple is misleading. There were, of course, a very large number of temple vessels (93 according to m. Tarn. 3.4), used for a variety of purposes connected with the sacrifices. T h e y were famous (cf. P. Oxy. 840), and had been displayed in R o m e at Titus's triumph (Bell 7.161).Josephus refers to them as huge and of solid gold (Bell. 5.388; cf. also Bell. 1.152; Ant. 14.72). There is no way he could have forgotten them w h e n writing CA 2.106. Indeed, he mentions them a few sen­ tences later (CA 2.108). His statement that no vessels were allowed to be carried into the temple must refer to vessels other than those which belonged to the temple. Such a rule is entirely intelligible, since the temple's own vessels were considered holy, like the temple itself (Zech. 14.20-21), whereas other vessels might convey impurity. Pre­ sumably, materials for sacrifices such as flour and wine were placed in temple vessels either in the Court of the Gentiles or even outside it. Josephus therefore combines two facts—that vessels from outside the temple could not be taken into it, and that the four items he men­ tions were the only items of movable furniture inside the temple—to create a rather misleading impression. Large quantities of food and drink—meat, flour, bread, oil, wine—were constandy being taken into the temple, as materials for sacrifice and as the shewbread. From them a feast such as the story about Antiochus described could, with the exception of the fish, have been prepared in one of the many chambers built into the sides of the sanctuary building (Bell. 5.220). In his anxiety to refute the ridiculous story, Josephus is somewhat economical with the truth. 13

Reference to CA 2.106 has often been made in connexion with Mark's statement (unique to the Markan account of Jesus' demon­ stration in the temple) that Jesus prevented anyone from carrying an object or vessel (CJK£UO<;) through the temple (Mark 11.16). However, Josephus' concern cannot be that of Mark's Jesus. T h e latter is un­ likely to have been especially concerned about an issue of temple purity, but in any case it is scarcely conceivable that he would have encountered people breaking the rule to which Josephus refers. Ves­ sels other than the temple's own may have been brought into the so-called Court of the Gentiles, but Levite gatekeepers would have seen that they were taken no further. Jesus' action is more plausibly

13

See D . R . S c h w a r t z , " V i e w i n g t h e H o l y Utensils (P. O x . V , 8 4 0 ) , " NTS (1986) 1 5 3 - 1 5 9 .

32

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

339

connected with his other actions aimed at the trade which the tem­ ple authorities were conducting in the outer court. T h e vessels may have contained flour, oil and wine which were being brought into the outer court to be sold for sacrifices, at a profit to the temple. 14

6. The priestly courses Haec enim quae praedicta sunt habent totius populi testimonium manifestationemque gestorum. Licet enim sint tribus quattuor sacerdotum et harum tribuum singulae habeant hominum plus quam quinque milia, fit tamen obseruatio particulariter per dies certos, et his transactis alii succedentes ad sacrificia ueniunt et congregati in templum mediante die a praecedentibus claues templi et ad numerum uasa percipiunt, nulla re, quae ad cibum aut potum adtineat, in templum delata. Talia namque etiam ad altare offere prohibitum est praeter ilia, quae ad sacrificia praeparantur (CA 2.107-108). The foregoing statements are attested by the whole people and evi­ denced by the procedures. For, although there are four tribes of priests and each of these tribes comprises more than five thousand men, nev­ ertheless the duties are performed by each in turn [or: by one part at a time] for a fixed period of days. When this period is completed, others in succession come to perform the sacrifices, and, assembling in the temple at midday, take over from their predecessors the keys of the temple and all the vessels, to their full number, and nothing in the nature of food or drink has been brought within the temple. For such things are not even permitted to be brought as offerings to the altar, with the exception of those which are prepared for the sacrifices. 5

Josephus last remark here implicitly acknowledges the point we no­ ticed earlier: that many of the ingredients of the alleged feast were constantly being taken into the temple for use in the sacrifices. T h e final sentence does not mean that only certain kinds of food and drink (such as doves and wine)—those used in the sacrifices—were brought into the temple. Since a rather good feast could be pre­ pared from those that were, this point would not be worth making. Rather it means that those animals and other comestibles which were brought into the temple had all been specially prepared to meet the requirements of the sacrificial system. T h e requirement that sacrificial animals be unblemished, for example, was interpreted so stringently

14

See R . B a u c k h a m , " J e s u s ' D e m o n s t r a t i o n in t h e T e m p l e , " in B . L i n d a r s ed., Law and Religion ( C a m b r i d g e : J a m e s C l a r k e , 1988) 7 8 .

340

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

that animals were reared and sold under the auspices of temple officials, in order to ensure that only animals certified as fit for sac­ rifice were purchased and offered by the public (cf. m. Sheqal. 5.1; Lam. R. 2.2.4). T h e flour, oil and wine which accompanied most animal sacrifices were supplied by and purchased from the temple authorities (m. Sheqal. 5.4—5), w h o presumably took care to ensure their freedom from impurity (cf. m. Men. 8.2, 7). T h e temple had its own bakery in the buildings around the inner court (m. Tarn. 1.3), where the high priest's offering of cakes was made every morning, as were presumably the cakes and wafers regularly offered by individual worshippers in the "peace offering" (Lev. 7.12-14) and the loaves offered by the priests at Pentecost (Lev. 23.17; cf. t. Sheqal. 2.14, 177). T h e preparation of the shewbread, which Josephus omits to mention was the one category of foodstuff brought into the temple which was not stricdy a sacrifice, seems to have been the hereditary privilege of the priestly family of Garmu (m. Sheqal. 5.1; m. Yom. 3.11; cf. m. Midd. 1.6). T h o u g h some of the evidence of the Mishnah and rabbinic litera­ ture on such points might be doubted, the cumulative evidence of a variety of detailed points, such as the remembered names of temple officials responsible for aspects of the supply, inspection and sale of materials for sacrifice, amounts to a good case for the widely ac­ cepted view that the temple authorities had a monopoly in the pro­ vision of animals and other materials for sacrifice. Josephus, CA 2.108, though I have never seen it cited in this connexion, provides valuable confirmation of this state of affairs. In the context of his apol­ ogetic argument, Josephus means that people could not bring their own animals or other food or drink into the temple—even to offer at the altar. T h e only sacrificial offerings which could be brought were those prepared for the purpose. In other words, nothing escaped the close supervision of the thousands of priests who were in constant control of everything that went on in the temple. O f course, a suspi­ cious Gentile reader inclined to believe Apion's slanderous story might 15

16

17

15

T h e specific e v i d e n c e available is for b i r d s r a t h e r t h a n o t h e r a n i m a l s . S a n d e r s , Judaism, 8 5 - 8 9 , i g n o r e s s u c h e v i d e n c e . A g a i n s t S a n d e r s , Judaism, 8 8 - 8 9 , it is n o t likely t h a t p e o p l e b o u g h t a n i m a l s ( o t h e r t h a n birds) from p r i v a t e d e a l e r s o u t s i d e t h e walls of J e r u s a l e m a n d simply h a d t h e m i n s p e c t e d for fitness b y priests w h e n t h e y b r o u g h t t h e m i n t o t h e t e m p l e . P e o p l e w o u l d w a n t t o k n o w , before p u r c h a s i n g a n a n i m a l , t h a t it m e t t h e stringent r e q u i r e m e n t s for sacrifice. 1 6

17

341

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

think these priests perfectly capable of using such sacrificial materials to fatten up a Greek for human sacrifice. But Josephus's point is that, since the several tribes of priests served in the temple in rota­ tion, each serving for only a matter of days before handing over to the next, all the many thousands of priests would have to know what was going on. In effect, the matter would be public knowledge. This brings us to the problematic part of the passage: the state­ ment that there are four tribes of priests, each comprising more than five thousand people. There is some reason to suppose that the num­ ber four must be a scribal error for twenty-four, and that the state­ ment refers to the twenty-four priestly courses, to which Josephus refers in Ant. 7.365-368. A little more information about the way the courses operated will help to make this clear. There is abundant evi­ dence that the system continued in operation at least from the time of the composition of 1 Chron. 2 4 . 7 - 1 8 , whether that be the late Persian or the Maccabean period, until 70 C E , and that in fact not only the memory, but the careful preservation of the twenty-four courses continued long after 70 C E . T h e Qumran Mishmarot texts ( 4 Q 3 2 0 - 3 2 5 , 4 Q 3 2 8 - 3 3 0 ) contribute important n e w e v i d e n c e . Whereas 1QM 2.2 refers to twenty-six priestly courses, a number which is readily intelligible as neady fitting the community's 52-week solar year, the Mishmarot texts show that, at least for part of its history, the community recognized the same rotation of twenty-four courses as operated in the temple. T h e texts use it for calendrical 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

18

S o H . G . M . W i l l i a m s o n , " T h e origins of t h e t w e n t y - f o u r priestly c o u r s e s : a study of 1 C h r o n i c l e s x x i i i - x x v i i , " in J . A. E m e r t o n ed., Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament ( S u p V T 3 0 ; L e i d e n : Brill, 1979) 2 5 1 - 2 6 8 . S o , m o s t recently, J . D e q u e k e r , " 1 C h r o n i c l e s xxiv a n d t h e R o y a l P r i e s t h o o d of t h e H a s m o n e a n s , " Oudtestamentische Studien 2 4 (1986) 9 4 - 1 0 6 . Cf., e.g., M . S t e r n , " A s p e c t s of J e w i s h Society: T h e P r i e s t h o o d a n d O t h e r Classes," in S. Safrai a n d M . S t e r n ed., The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2 ( C R I N T 1/2; Assen: V a n G o r c u m , 1976) 5 8 7 - 5 9 5 . O n these texts, see M . O . W i s e , Thunder in Gemini ( J S P S S 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994) 2 2 2 - 2 3 2 ; C . M a r t o n e , " U n c a l e n d a r i o p r o v e n i e n t e d a Q u m r a r e c e n t e m e n t e p u b b l i c a t o , " Henoch 16 (1994) 4 9 - 7 6 ; S. T a l m o n a n d I. K n o h l , " A C a l e n d r i c a l Scroll from a Q u m r a n C a v e : Mismarot B , 4 Q 3 2 1 , " in D . P . W r i g h t , D . N . F r e e d m a n a n d A. H u r v i t z ed., Pomegranates and Golden Bells ( J . M i l g r o m F S ; W i n o n a L a k e , I n d i a n a : E i s e n b r a u n s , 1995) 2 6 7 - 3 0 1 . S o also 4 Q 4 7 1 : see E. a n d H . Eshel, " 4 Q 4 7 1 F r a g m e n t 1 a n d Ma'amadot in t h e W a r Scroll," in T r e b o l l e B a r r e r a a n d V e g a s M o n t a n e r ed., The Madrid Qumran Congress, vol. 2, 6 1 1 - 6 2 0 . P . W i n t e r , " T w e n t y - s i x Priestly C o u r s e s , " VT 6 (1956) 2 1 5 - 2 1 7 . Against t h e view t h a t t h e Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y e x p r e s s e d t h e i r o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e H a s m o n e a n s b y d e m o t i n g t h e c o u r s e of J e h o i a r i b from first p l a c e , see D . R . 19

2 0

21

a

2 2

2 3

2 4

342

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

purposes, especially in elaborate correlations between the community's solar calendar and the lunisolar calendar in use in the temple. Since the courses serve, a week at a time, in strict and continuous rotation, they provide a sequence which is apparently neutral between the two calendars. T h e day which is called the first of a course's period of service is always a Sunday, and its seventh and final day is always a Sabbath. But the texts also date the 'arrival' of a course on the Sabbath before its first day (4Q323, 324). This confirms the evi­ dence of both Josephus (Ant. 7.365) and the Mishnah (m. Sukk. 5.8; m. Tarn. 5.1) that the outgoing course handed over to the incoming course on the Sabbath, the former offering the Sabbath morning incense-offering and burnt-offering, the latter offering the Sabbath afternoon burnt-offering and incense-offering. CA 2.108 can very naturally be read as describing the ceremony on the Sabbath when the outgoing course handed over to the in­ coming course. Josephus puts it at midday, the same time as he has already told us one shift of priests handed over to the next every day (CA 2.105). O n the Sabbath, we should assume, this change of shifts (within one priestly course) was replaced by the change of courses. T h e keys of the temple court (cf. m. Tarn. 1.1; m. Midd. 1.8-9), together with custody of the fabulously precious vessels used in the temple, were transferred from the heads of one course and its con­ stituent clans to those of the next course. Probably we should im­ agine all the priests of each course assembling for this ceremony, as one course arrived in the temple and the other prepared to leave. For the rest of the week each clan in the course would then take its turn to serve. If, in CA 2.108, Josephus intends to say that each of the tribus of priests serves for a specified period of days, and that on the day when the period of service of one ends, it assembles in the temple at midday to hand over to the next, then his tribus must be the twentyfour courses. In this case we have to conclude that a textual error has reduced twenty-four tribus to four. There is no difficulty in postulating such an error. If we were to apply what Josephus says about the rotation of priests to four large units, each comprising six 25

S c h w a r t z , " O n T w o A s p e c t s of a Priestly V i e w of D e s c e n t at Q u m r a n , " in L. H . Schiffman ed., Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls ( J S P S S 8; Sheffield; JSOT Press, 1990) 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 . N u m b e r s in t h e L a t i n v e r s i o n of CA n o t i n f r e q u e n d y differ from those in t h e G r e e k text, w h e r e t h e l a t t e r is e x t a n t . 2 5

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

343

of the courses, then we should have to make the highly improbable assumption that all the priests of six courses stayed in Jerusalem for the six weeks in which each of their courses served in the temple for one week and, at the end of the six weeks, all assembled in the temple to hand over to the priests of the incoming six courses. Although tribus is not likely to be a translation of e<pr||Li£p{a, which Josephus uses, rather inappropriately, but apparentiy following standard usage (cf. Luke 1.4, 8: e<pr||j,ep{oc), for the priestly courses in Vita 2, it could easily translatercocxpioc,which designates the priestly courses in Ant. 7.364, 366. (Josephus reserves
27

c

c

28

2 6

J . C . O ' N e i l l suggested this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o m e . J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 ; S t e r n , " A s p e c t s , " 5 8 8 - 5 8 9 . T h e e v i d e n c e for priestly divisions in t h e post-exilic p e r i o d b e f o r e 1 C h r o n . 2 4 is c o m p l e x (see E z r a 1 0 : 1 8 - 2 2 ; N e h . 1 0 : 3 - 9 ; 1 2 . 1 - 7 , 1 2 - 2 1 ) . C l e a r l y t h e s i t u a t i o n c h a n g e d a n u m b e r of t i m e s . 2 7

2 8

344

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

In the absence of any other evidence that four such divisions were known, it is probably easier to suppose that the number four is cor­ rupt and that Josephus referred to no divisions other than the twentyfour courses. In that case, we cannot follow Jeremias and Sanders in accept­ ing the figure of 20,000 (4 X 5000) as an accurate estimate of the total number of priests. Assuming that the number 5000 is not itself corrupt, Josephus will have originally referred to a total number of over 120,000 priests (24 X 5000). Since Josephus is speaking specifically of priests serving in the temple by rotation, it is unlikely that he intends his figure to include w o m e n and children. Nor is he likely to be including the corresponding courses of Levites. It is true that the Levites were also organized into twenty-four courses, each serv­ ing for a week (Ant. 7.267), and it seems that each of these served alongside one of the priesdy courses (cf. m. Ta an. 4.2). But Josephus, a priest himself, is unlikely to have called Levites priests. Moreover, the whole point of his argument is to refer to those who entered the inner parts of the temple, where Apion's story alleged that a Greek was imprisoned. Levites, who were not allowed beyond the Court of the Israelites, would not be relevant to the argument. So we must accept (assuming 5000 is not a textual error) that Josephus intended to say that there were more than 120,000 priests. T h e figure is too large to be credible. Josephus was certainly capable of exaggerating numbers. An ex­ ample, near at hand and also with reference to the temple, occurs in his refutation of the next anti-Jewish story he cites from Apion. The story concerns an Idumean w h o is alleged to have got into the holy of holies and stolen the golden head of an ass supposed to be kept there. Josephus responds that he could not, by himself, have opened the gates of the sanctuary (xou vocou) which were 60 cubits high and 20 wide, and which took 200 men to close them every day (CA 2.119). H e has usually been thought to be referring to the gates of the inner court —either to the eastern gate alone or to all ten gates. 29

30

31

c

32

2 9

J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, 2 0 5 . S a n d e r s , Judaism, 7 8 . A g a i n s t E . S c h ü r e r , The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135), v o l . 2, r e v i s e d b y G . V e r m e s , F . M i l l a r , M . B l a c k ( E d i n b u r g h : T . & T . C l a r k , 1979) 2 4 7 . S o H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y , Josephus, vol. 1 ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i ­ versity Press; L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n , 1966) 3 4 0 , n o t e s a, c; S a n d e r s , Judaism, 6 0 . 3 0

31

3 2

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

345

According to Bell. 5.202, these were all the same size: each door (of the pair of doors in each gateway) was 30 cubits high and 15 wide. Josephus also says that it took 20 men to close the eastern gate, which, being of bronze, he implies was heavier than the other nine (Bell. 6.293). T h e suggestion that in CA 2.119 Josephus envisages ten bands of twenty men, each closing one of the ten gates of the inner court, is implausible, not only because the eastern gate was probably much heavier than the rest, but because the Idumean in the story did not have to open all ten gates at once, but just one. All that was relevant was how many men it took to open the one gate he would need to open to get into the sanctuary. But if Josephus in CA 2.119 was referring to one of the gates (pair of doors) to the inner court, he not only exaggerated its size and vasdy exaggerated the number of men needed to open it, he also misdescribed it. H e says that these doors were wholly overlaid with gold (CA 2.119), whereas the eastern gate of the inner court was Corinthian bronze, and the other nine gates were overlaid with gold and silver (Bell. 5.201). In fact, in CA 2.119 he must be describing, not a gate into the inner court, but the gate that led from the porch of the sanctu­ ary building into the holy place. It was the doors of this gate which were most appropriately described as xou vocou a! Gupai (CA 2.119), and it was through these doors that the Idumean had to pass to reach the holy of holies. In the War Josephus describes them as golden (just as the whole entrance porch was golden), and as 55 cubits high and 16 broad (Bell. 5.211). But the room into which they opened (the holy place) was 60 cubits high and 20 wide (Bell. 5.215). It is probably these latter figures which Josephus reproduces in CA 2.119. H e may not be intentionally exaggerating: the precise figures for the doors had not stayed in his mind, but the much better-known size of the sanctuary building itself was firmly fixed in his mind. In that case, we must ask: did it take 200 priests (for they would have to have been priests) to open the doors of the sanctuary? Assuming each of the two doors was 16 cubits wide, the total width, along which people pushing the doors could stand, was 48 feet. It is hard to see how 200 men could have been used, unless ropes were needed. The figure must be an exaggeration, though the Mishnah's view that a single priest opened these doors (m. Tarn. 3.7; m. Midd. 4.2) is also hardly credible. Perhaps, as Josephus claims for the eastern gate, 33

3 3

T h a c k e r a y , Josephus, vol. 1, 3 4 0 - 3 4 1 , n o t e c.

346

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

twenty men were required, and Josephus has multiplied by ten. Writ­ ing perhaps thirty years after the destruction of the temple, per­ haps his memory failed him, but it suited his apologetic purpose to exaggerate. This parallel case shows that we should probably not try to save the accuracy of Josephus' figure of over 5000 priests in each of the courses. O n the basis of information in the Mishnah, Jeremias cal­ culated that each morning ceremony (incense-offering and burntoffering) required 27 priests, each evening ceremony (burnt-offering and incense-offering) 29, and that 28 more were needed for addi­ tional duties on the sabbath. N o t all the details in the Mishnah may be historical, but in general these figures are credible. But priests for these duties were chosen by lot. T h e figures do not really help us to tell how many were in the clan (the subdivision of a course) which supplied the priests on duty on any one day, especially as we do not know whether priests worked a twenty-four hour shift or a twelvehour one (see above). Courses and clans, being hereditary, must in any case have varied in size. Even if the twenty-four courses were roughly equal in numbers when first constituted, they could have become widely divergent in size by the first century CE. An average of 500 in a course would be a reasonable guess, and would mean that Josephus has again multiplied by ten. But there is one text which may give us better information on this point than Josephus. Pseudo-Aristeas, whose account of the temple is by no means wholly reliable but may incorporate some element of eyewitness observa­ tion, says that more than seven hundred ministers (taiToupycov) were present (rcapovxcov), and also a large number offering (rcpooayovTCQv) the sacrifices (EpArist 95). Jeremias thought that the figure of more than 700 refers to all the priests and Levites of the weekly course, while the large number (he estimates 50) bringing sacrifices are the priests of the clan actually on duty that day and carrying out the sacrifices. Sanders criticizes this view, claiming that the 700 must be the priests actually on duty and sacrificing in the Court of the Priests. H e rightly concludes that the figure is in that case far too large, and dismisses Pseudo-Aristeas' evidence as worthless. How­ ever, there is more to be said for Jeremias' view than he allows. 34

35

36

3 4

3 5

3 6

J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 . J e r e m i a s , Jerusalem, 2 0 0 . S a n d e r s , Judaism, 7 8 - 7 9 .

347

JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE TEMPLE

Since Pseudo-Aristeas says that the high priest was officiating (EpArist 96), he must intend to describe the scene on, if not a feast day, at least a sabbath (cf. Bell 5.231). O n a sabbath, as we have seen, the whole of the outgoing priestly course would assemble, in order to hand over custody of the temple to the incoming course. So Jeremias' view is plausible, except that the number probably does not include Levites (cf. EpArist 92). O f course, 700 sounds like a conventional figure. W e might suppose that Pseudo-Aristeas was told both that a whole priestly course was present and that 700 was the number in a course. 700 would be the ideal figure, but would presumably also bear some relation to reality. At any rate, 16,800 (700 x 24) is a more plausible estimate of the total number of priests than 120,000. Finally, we should notice that whereas Josephus began this whole passage by describing the temple in the past tense, he has moved by the end into the present tense. This might be an unremarkable use of the historic present, if it were not for the fact that it fits a pattern seen elsewhere in CA. W h e n describing the temple building, Josephus spoke of it, very naturally, in the past tense (CA 2.102-104), just as he does also in CA 2.119. It is when describing the ministry of the priests in the temple that he moves into the present tense. Similarly, in CA 2.76-77, Josephus remarkably describes the daily offering of sacrifices in the temple on behalf of the Emperor in the present tense, while in 2.193 he again speaks of the continuous ministry of the priests in the temple in the present tense. T h e present is timeless rather than historic. It means that Josephus, even when he wrote CA, could not envisage Judaism without the ministry of the priests in the temple at its heart. O n this another study could be written. 37

3 7

T h i s c h a p t e r o r i g i n a t e d as a p a p e r r e a d to t h e S N T S s e m i n a r o n " E a r l y J e w i s h W r i t i n g s a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t " at t h e S N T S C o n f e r e n c e in E d i n b u r g h , A u g u s t 1994. I a m grateful to P i e t e r W . v a n d e r H o r s t a n d J a n W i l l e m v a n H e n t e n , c o chairs of t h e s e m i n a r , for inviting m e to give t h e p a p e r , t o m e m b e r s of t h e s e m i n a r w h o m a d e v a l u a b l e c o m m e n t s , a n d especially to J o h n O ' N e i l l for his d e t a i l e d a n d perceptive response.

CONTRA APIONEM A N D ANTIQUITATES POINTS OF CONTACT

JUDAICAE:

1

PAUL SPILSBURY

Canadian Bible College

T h e purpose of this study is to attempt to elucidate some aspects of the relationship between CA and Ant. While it has often been noted that both of these works have clear apologetic aims, no systematic catalogue of significant points of contact between them has been at­ tempted. Obviously, it is not possible to remedy this situation fully here. Rather, a more modest program is proposed: namely, to focus on substantive similarities between CA and the first half of Ant. (i.e. Josephus biblical paraphrase). Three different lines of approach will be followed. T h e first will be to note the way in which both works display knowledge and use of a shared store of literary sources. T h e second will be to demonstrate how the apologetic concerns of the two works are closely parallel with each another. And the third, to show that even where the contact is less clear, CA may in fact represent a significant development of ideas first expressed in Ant.; thus again evincing a strong connection between the two works. It is not suggested by this that there are not also significant points of divergence between the two works. In his book, Josephus and Judaean Politics, S. Schwartz goes so far as to exclude CA from his treatment of Josephus' "intellectual development", arguing rather that "It is probably wisest to suppose that CA is closely based on one or two Alexandrian-Jewish apologetic pamphlets probably written during the Jewish-Greek disturbances of the thirties and forties." T h e main 2

5

3

1

A n e a r l i e r draft of this p a p e r w a s p r e s e n t e d in t h e " E a r l y C h r i s t i a n W r i t i n g s a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t " s e m i n a r of t h e 1994 m e e t i n g of t h e Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. I a m grateful t o t h e m e m b e r s of t h a t s e m i n a r for t h e i r critical i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e issues t h a t a r e r a i s e d h e r e . I n p a r t i c u l a r , I wish to t h a n k t h e c h a i r p e r s o n s of t h e s e m i n a r , Professors P . W . v a n d e r H o r s t a n d J . W . v a n H e n t e n , for t h e i r h e l p a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t . I also o w e a d e b t of g r a t i t u d e to t h e editors of t h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e for t h e i r helpful c o m m e n t s a n d suggestions w h i c h h a v e further e n h a n c e d this s t u d y . S e e , for e x a m p l e , T . R a j a k , Josephus, p p . 2 2 3 - 2 2 9 . Judaean Politics, p . 2 3 . See also G . H ö l s c h e r , " J o s e p h u s , " p p . 1 9 9 4 - 1 9 9 7 . 2

3

COMTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITA TES JUDAICAE

349

reason for this judgement is the anomalous fact that CA and Vita which were written at around the same time are so strikingly different in terms of literary quality, with CA being much the superior. Thus, it is argued, if Josephus wrote Vita he could not possibly have also written CA, which seems to belong to a different class of literature altogether. While.is it not our intention to debate the issue of author­ ship, a few ground-clearing observations on the subject are in order before we engage in the main task of this study. It should be borne in mind that Josephus is known to have made use of the services of literary assistants in composing at least one of his works, Bell. However, this fact is known to us not from Bell, it­ self but because of a rather belated acknowledgment of the fact in CA 1.50. Presumably, therefore, it would not have been beyond Josephus to leave unacknowledged any literary assistance he might have received in the writing of CA as well. Further, H. St. J. Thackeray argued a long time ago that he had found evidence of literary edi­ tors in Ant. even though no such assistance is credited by Josephus. O n the contrary, in Ant. 20.263 he claims to have taken great pains "to partake of the realm of Greek prose and poetry, after having gained a knowledge of Greek grammar." T h e point of these obser­ vations here is simply to suggest that the degree of literary polish or otherwise is not in itself the most important aspect of the relation­ ship between these works since we are not in a position to assess with any confidence the degree to which Josephus had recourse to the professional services of literary editors. Thus, it is at least plau­ sible that Josephus had significant assistance for CA and (for what­ ever reason) none for Vita. O f course, it remains true that Josephus may have relied heavily on other sources for the composition of CA. It will become clear in the course of our study, however, that this is not a basis on which to distinguish this work from Ant. since the latter also makes significant 4

5

6

7

4

O n t h e d a t i n g of these w o r k s , see HJP 1, p p . 5 4 - 5 5 . H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y , Josephus, p p . 1 0 0 - 1 2 4 ; also L C L Josephus, vol. 4 , p p . x i v xvii. D e s p i t e t h e criticism t h a t this t h e o r y h a s r e c e i v e d from m a n y q u a r t e r s (espe­ cially G . C . R i c h a r d s , " C o m p o s i t i o n , " p p . 3 9 - 4 0 ; R . J . H . S h u t t , Studies, p p . 5 9 - 7 8 ; H . P e t e r s e n , " L i t e r a r y Projects"), it is w o r t h n o t i n g S. S c h w a r t z ' s c o m m e n t t o t h e effect t h a t , " I t h a s n o t b e e n p r o v e d t h a t s o m e stylistic peculiarities of Ant. a r e not d u e to t h e activities of c o l l a b o r a t o r s " {Judaean Politics p . 45). O n t h e possibility t h a t Vita r e p r e s e n t s J o s e p h u s ' proficiency in G r e e k a t a m u c h earlier stage in his c a r e e r , see S. J . D . C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and in Rome, p . 8 3 . Cf. S. Belkin, " T h e A l e x a n d r i a n S o u r c e . " 5

6

7

350

PAUL SPILSBURY

use of (very often, the same) literary sources; and further, that the degree of substantive "contact" between the two works makes un­ thinking use of sources in CA unlikely.

Direct references to Ant. in C A T h e most logical starting point for our investigation of the points of contact between CA and Ant. is that group of passages in which CA makes direct reference to Ant. In CA 1.1 Josephus refers back to Ant. as a work dealing with the antiquity of the Jewish race, the purity of the original stock and the manner in which it established itself in its homeland. H e also indicates in this context (1.2) that the work was not well received by certain individuals w h o rejected its argument for the antiquity of the Jewish race (see also 1.53-54). Josephus thus sets out in CA to construct an internally consistent riposte to this objection. In a significant way, therefore, CA is an attempt to substantiate in detail one of the main premises of Ant., namely, the antiquity of the Jewish race. Further, he sets out in CA to expose his detractors as frauds and to correct the ignorant of any lingering misconceptions about Juda­ ism. This program is recapitulated and reaffirmed at the beginning of Book T w o (2.1) and again at the end of the entire work (2.287295). In the latter context he once more relates CA to Ant., thus confirming the impression that CA was motivated by the response accorded to the earlier work. In CA 1 . 5 3 - 5 6 Josephus defends both the Bell, and Ant. against detractors, giving as his qualification for writing the latter his claim to priestly descent (on which see also Vita 1). In CA 2.136 Josephus responds to Apion's charge that the Jews "have not produced any geniuses . . . inventors in the arts and crafts or eminent sages" (2.135) with the remark that "Our own famous men, who are entided to rank with the highest, are familiar to readers of my Antiquities." Here we have an example of Josephus actually appealing to Ant. as support for his arguments in CA. T h e apologetic colouring of Josephus' presentation of the main biblical characters in 8

9

8

Cf. Ant.

9

S e e also CA 1.127.

1.13.

CONTRA APIONEM AND AKTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

351

10

Ant. is well-known. What is most significant for our purposes is to note the close correlation between the apologetics of Ant. and CA. The apologetic motivations which lie behind CA are already present behind the writing of Ant. While the form of the two works is obvi­ ously different, their underlying concerns are closely allied.

Shared citations of other sources The next area of contact between the two works is the citation of other sources which appear in both works. T o start, we may note that the primary evidence adduced in CA to support the claim re­ garding the antiquity of the Jewish nation is a series of references to the Jews in the writings of non-Jews from antiquity (1.69-218). Like­ wise in Ant., Josephus does not shun opportunities to quote external sources to substantiate his arguments. In Ant. 1.158-160 Berossus, Hecataeus and Nicolas of Damascus are cited as external verification of the existence of Abraham. Berossus and Hecataeus are cited more extensively in CA 1 . 1 2 8 - 1 5 3 and 1.183-204 respectively. Nicolas is mentioned in passing at CA 2.84. In Ant. 8 . 1 4 7 - 1 4 9 and CA 1.113-115 Josephus quotes exactly the same passage from Dios dealing with relations between Solomon and Hiram. In these contexts he also cites the same passage from Menander of Ephesus (Ant. 8 . 1 4 4 - 1 4 6 ; CA 1.116-120). Megasthenes is cited at both Ant. 1 0 . 2 2 7 - 2 2 8 and CA 1.144. So too is Philostratos. Josephus quotes Herodotus verbatim at both Ant. 8.262 and CA 1.169170. Agatharchides of Cnidus is cited at Ant. 12.6 and CA 1.206-212 on the Jewish practice of circumcision. These shared citations of ancient sources would seem to indicate that Josephus was drawing on a similar pool of resources in the com­ position of the two works. O f course, Ant. could itself be the direct source of the citations in CA. In any case, these sources constitute an important link between the general conception and apologetic pro­ grams of Ant. and CA. 11

10

See further b e l o w , p p . 3 5 3 - 3 5 5 . I n CA 1.130 J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s t h a t Berossus refers t o N o a h a n d t h e flood. Berossus is also m e n t i o n e d as a n e x t e r n a l witness to t h e flood in Ant. 1.93. Berossus is also cited as e v i d e n c e for N e b u c h a d n e z z a r in CA 1 . 1 3 1 - 1 5 3 a n d Ant. 10.219—226. 11

352

PAUL SPILSBURY

Apologetic issues W e move n o w to a consideration of some of the explicit apologetics of the two works. As has already been indicated, CA is partly an attempt to counter misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Jew­ ish history, customs and cultic rites. In this section we will attempt to demonstrate significant convergence on central apologetic themes. For purposes of clarity and organization these themes have been dis­ tilled into six major categories. 12

1. The slanderous claim that the Jewish forebears were lepers expelled from Egypt Concern to refute this calumny is clearly in evidence in numerous places in CA (1.229ff., 256ff., 2 7 9 - 2 8 3 , 3 0 5 - 3 1 1 ; 2.15). One of these instances will suffice here to gain a sense of the issue for Josephus. In 1.279 Josephus claims that the Egyptians, "who regard that man [i.e. Moses] as remarkable, indeed divine," at the same time make the contradictory assertion that he was expelled from Heliopolis as a leper. Josephus counters this calumny by arguing that Moses lived 518 years before the alleged expulsions. H e then goes on to point out that Moses law takes special care to exclude leprosy from the community; and then he asks: "Is it likely that he was so foolish as to make . . . laws enacted against themselves, to their own disgrace and injury?" Likewise, in his biblical paraphrase Josephus makes numerous explicit and implicit attempts to address the calumny that the Jews' forebears were lepers. In 3 . 2 6 1 - 2 6 4 he summarizes the Levitical rulings on the treatment of lepers and other "unclean" persons. That leprosy is uppermost in Josephus' mind at this point is sug13

5

14

15

12

T h e list of a p o l o g e t i c i t e m s i m p o r t a n t t o J o s e p h u s in CA is c o n v e n i e n t l y p r o ­ v i d e d in HJP 3 . 1 , p p . 6 1 0 - 6 1 6 . T h i s r e f e r e n c e t o M o s e s as a " d i v i n e m a n " is itself a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t of c o n ­ t a c t b e t w e e n CA a n d Ant. (especially 3.180). F o r f u r t h e r discussion see b e l o w , p . 3 5 4 a n d n. 2 1 . Cf. G . H a t a , " T h e S t o r y of M o s e s , " p p . 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 - 1 9 1 . F o r a discussion of J o s e p h u s ' r e n d e r i n g of t h e L a w in CA see G . V e r m e s , " A S u m m a r y of t h e L a w . " W h i l e t h e a p p r o a c h in t h e Ant. c e n t r e s p r i m a r i l y o n t h e H e b r e w S c r i p t u r e s , t h e r e also t h e e x p o s i t i o n of M o s e s ' laws a n d J e w i s h c u s t o m s a r e i m p o r t a n t (e.g. 3 . 9 0 - 2 8 6 ; 4 . 1 9 6 - 3 0 1 ) . W e m i g h t also a d d t h a t in b o t h CA a n d Ant. J o s e p h u s m a k e s m u c h of t h e J e w s ' willingness t o o b e y t h e laws a t a n y cost. 13

14

15

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

353

gested by the fact that he refers to it twice in this short passage, both at the beginning and at the end. T h e n in §§ 2 6 5 - 2 6 8 Josephus draws the following conclusion which is strikingly similar to the one we have just quoted from CA: From all this one can but regard as ridiculous those who assert that Moses, being struck with leprosy, was himself forced to flee from Egypt and, taking command of all who had been expelled for the same rea­ son, conducted them to Canaan. For, were this true, Moses would never have issued to his own humiliation statutes such as these . . . more especially since among other nations there are lepers in the enjoyment of honours, who, far from undergoing contumely and exile, conduct the most brilliant campaigns, are entrusted with offices of state, and have the right of entry to sacred courts and temples. . . , No; it is clear that in making these statements about us they are instigated by jealousy, and that Moses was immune from all that, and, living among his countrymen equally immune, that he legislated concerning those so diseased, and that it was in God's honour that he thus acted. 16

It is significant in this connection, therefore, that when Moses re­ quires a sign at the encounter at the burning bush he does not be­ come temporarily leprous as in Exodus 4.6, but rather his right hand becomes "white, of a colour resembling chalk" (Ant. 2.273). T h e concern to counter calumnious claims that the Jews were descended from a race of lepers is clearly an important point of contact between CA and Ant. 17

2. The charge that the Jews had made no contribution to civilization nor produced any eminent figures We have already noted Josephus' explicit appeal in CA 2.136 to his portrayal of the Jewish heroes in Ant. W e might add to this Josephus' response to the calumnies of Apollonius Molon w h o m he reports as "reviling us in one place as atheists and misanthropes (ox; dGeouq KOCI ILuaavGpcoTcouq A,oi8opei), in another place reproaching us as cowards, whereas elsewhere, on the contrary, he accuses us of temerity and

16

T h i s is u n d o u b t e d l y a r e f e r e n c e t o N a a m a n , c a p t a i n of t h e a r m y of t h e k i n g of Syria in 2 K g s . 5 . 1 - 2 7 w h o w a s c u r e d of l e p r o s y b y t h e p r o p h e t Elisha. I n his biblical p a r a p h r a s e , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e w h o l e p a s s a g e of 2 K g s . 4 . 8 - 6 . 8 . Closely tied u p w i t h t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e J e w i s h f o r e b e a r s w e r e lepers w a s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y w e r e Egyptian lepers. W e a r e t h e r e f o r e n o t s u r p r i s e d t o find t h a t in t h e Ant. J o s e p h u s p l a c e s s o m e stress o n t h e C h a l d e a n origins of t h e H e b r e w s [Ant. 1 . 1 4 3 - 1 5 4 ; cf. CA 1.71). 17

354

PAUL SPILSBURY

reckless madness. H e adds that we are the most widess of all bar­ barians, and are consequently the only people who have contributed no useful invention to civilization" (CA 2.148). In CA Josephus re­ sponds to this kind of hostility by arguing that the laws of Moses, which he expounds at great length (CA 2.15Iff.), and to which the Jews are wholeheartedly committed, are in direct conflict with such a description. In Ant. Josephus consistently aggrandizes the Jewish ancestors to refute precisely this kind of calumny. It is, of course, impossible to do justice to Josephus' portrayal of the main biblical characters here. A few highlights only will be noted. Firstly, Josephus argues that the wisdom of the east was passed to the Egyptians and thence to the Greeks through the mediation of the supremely wise Abraham (Ant. 1.168). In CA 2.168 the Greeks are made dependent upon Moses. Thus, despite the difference in person, the contention is the same in both works. Secondly, in CA (e.g. 2.154ff.) and in Ant., it is Moses who is the most eminent figure of all. In Ant. 1.18 Josephus states: "Well-nigh everything herein related is dependent on the wisdom of our law­ giver Moses." In the course of the narrative Moses is eulogized many times and in different w a y s . Ultimately, he was a man who "sur­ passed in understanding all men that ever lived" (Ant. 4.328), and whose laws are proof of the "superlative quality of his virtue" (Ant. 4.331). In Ant. 3.318 the law of Moses is cited as evidence of his "superhuman power" and the cause of his being "ranked higher than his own (human) nature." T h e emphasis on Moses' virtue and the high quality of his laws is fully consonant with the picture given in CA in which Moses is characterized (by the Egyptians at least) as divine (CA 1.279). 18

19

20

21

1 8

S e e L. H . F e l d m a n ' s m a n y articles o n J o s e p h u s ' " p o r t r a i t s " of biblical c h a r a c ­ ters. S e e also m y " T h e I m a g e of t h e J e w " in w h i c h I m a k e n u m e r o u s c o m m e n t s o n Feldman's work. A b r a h a m ' s k n o w l e d g e i n c l u d e s a r i t h m e t i c a n d a s t r o n o m y (Ant. 1.167). J o s e p h u s ' p o r t r a y a l of M o s e s is discussed at l e n g t h b y L. H . F e l d m a n in "Jose­ p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of M o s e s " p a r t s 1 - 3 . S e e also G . H a t a , " T h e S t o r y of M o s e s ; " C . R . H o l l a d a y , Theios Aner, p p . 2 0 7 - 2 4 0 ; W . A . M e e k s , Prophet King; T . R a j a k , "Flavius J o s e p h u s , " vol. 1, p p . 2 5 5 - 2 8 2 ; P . S p i l s b u r y , " T h e I m a g e of t h e J e w , " p p . 8 1 - 1 4 4 ; D . L. T i e d e , Charismatic Figure, p p . 2 0 7 - 2 4 0 . W h e n J o s e p h u s refers t o M o s e s as theios aner in Ant. 3 . 1 8 0 it is his e x t r e m e piety t h a t is b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o . F o r a discussion of this p a s s a g e as well of t h e l a n g u a g e of a p o t h e o s i s as J o s e p h u s a p p l i e s it t o M o s e s , see m y " T h e I m a g e of t h e J e w , " p p . 9 4 100. 19

2 0

2 1

355

CONTRA APIONEM AND AKT1QUITA TES JUDAICAE

Finally, we should note that Josephus takes steps to maintain the pristine image of his heroes. In the case of Moses this is done by substituting the story of his murder of an Egyptian guard with a story about his conquest of Ethiopia at the head of the Egyptian armies (Ant. 2.238-253). Other examples of judicious modifications of this kind include the elimination of Reuben's incest with Bilhah (Gen. 35.22) and Judah's indiscretions with Tamar (Gen. 38).

3. Derogatory speculations about Jewish worship In CA 2 . 7 9 - 1 0 2 Josephus responds to calumnies about what went on inside the temple, such as that the priests honoured an ass's head or annually sacrificed a Greek. Josephus counters these speculations by giving a clear account of the temple and the most important aspects of its ritual. In Ant., too, Josephus goes to some lengths to dispel such notions by describing both the tabernacle/temple (Ant. 3 . 1 0 2 150) and the sacrificial system (Ant. 3.224—239), with the main festi­ vals and holy days (Ant. 3.240-254). N o t surprisingly, he is careful to omit from his biblical paraphrase questionable "cultic" incidents such as the worship of the golden calf in Exodus 32 and the bronze serpent in Numbers 21. These might have been construed by his opponents as confirmation of their slanderous views. H e is also care­ ful to make no mention of the cherubim on the veil protecting the Holy of Holies (cf. Exod. 26.31), but says, rather, "It was decked with every manner of flower that earth produces and interwoven with all designs that could lend to its adornment, save only the forms of liv­ ing creatures" (Ant. 3.126).

4. Accusations of atheism, or contempt for the gods of other people This accusation, which we have already encountered in the words of Apollonius Molon (CA 2.148), apparendy arose from the Jews' refusal to worship the gods of the people among w h o m they lived. In CA 2.65 Apion is quoted as asking, "But why, then, if they are citizens, do they not worship the same gods as the Alexandrians?" In CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 1 9 2 Josephus counters such attacks by dwelling on the true nature of the Jews' (superior) understanding of God. In CA 2.144 Josephus states further: "A wise man's duty is to be scrupulously 22

2 2

Cf. HJP 3 . 1 , p p . 6 1 1 - 6 1 3 .

356

PAUL SPILSBURY

faithful to the religious laws of his country, and to refrain from abuse (JLLTI A,oi8opeiv) of those of others." In Ant., too, Josephus is clearly aware of the same kinds of Gen­ tile complaints against Judaism. In his embellishment of the events recorded in Numbers 25. Iff., the w o m e n of Midian address the H e ­ brew youths with these words: "Seeing then . . . that ye have cus­ toms and a mode of life wholly alien to all mankind, insomuch that your food is distinct from that of other men, it behoves you, if ye would live with us to revere our gods" (Ant. 4.137). "Nor can any man reproach you," they continue, "for venerating the special gods of the country whereto ye are come, above all when our gods are c o m m o n to all mankind, while yours has no other worshipper." In Ant., as in CA, Josephus makes no secret of the fact that the Jews worship their own G o d and none other. H e also does not shy away from asserting the superiority of the Jewish religion over that of the Egyptians, for example. However, he does go to some lengths to ensure that he is not misunderstood by his readers. In Ant. 4.207 Josephus includes among the laws of Moses the following prohibi­ tion: "Let none blaspheme the gods which other cities revere, nor rob foreign temples, nor take treasure that has been dedicated in the name of any god." T h e Jews' distinctiveness in regard to the worship of only their G o d is not to be construed as contempt for the gods of other countries. This point is itself an important point of contact with CA because we find precisely the same prohibition there as well. In CA 2.237 Josephus writes: "Our legislator has expressly forbid­ den us to blaspheme the gods recognized by others, out of respect for the very name G o d . " 23

24

25

5. The accusation that Jewish social segregation stemmed from a lack of humanity or regard for the rest of mankind T h e social segregation, or separateness, of the Jews in antiquity was apparently a feature of Jewish life that Josephus was anxious to ex-

2 3

A p i o n , J o s e p h u s a r g u e s , b r o k e b o t h of these p r i n c i p l e s . Cf. CA 1.224 w i t h Ant. 1 . 1 6 6 - 1 6 8 . S i m i l a r i n j u n c t i o n s a p p e a r in t w o p l a c e s in t h e writings of P h i l o as well (De Vita Mosis 2 . 2 0 5 ; De Spec. Leg. 1.53). All of t h e s e references h a v e as t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g s o u r c e t h e L X X t r a n s l a t i o n of E x o d . 2 2 . 2 8 ( " D o n o t e revile t h e gods"). B o t h t h e L X X a n d Philo m a y b e t a k e n as e x a m p l e s of " A l e x a n d r i a n " exegesis a n d m a y p e r h a p s t h e r e f o r e b e t a k e n as e x a m p l e s of J o s e p h u s ' d e p e n d e n c e u p o n A l e x a n d r i a n sources. 2 4

2 5

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITA TES JUDAICAE

357

plain. W h e n responding to the charge that the Jews' ancestors are not often mentioned by ancient historians, Josephus remarks, "Neither commerce nor the intercourse which it promotes with the outside world has any attraction for us" (CA 1.60). In the same context he explains the relative obscurity of the Jewish people as being due in part to "the peculiarity of our mode of life". A few paragraphs later he summarizes his argument with the words: Surely, then, it should no longer excite surprise that our nation, so remote from the sea, and so deliberately living its own life, . . . remained largely unknown and offered no occasion to historians to mention it. (CA 1.68, emphasis added) In CA 2.257-261 he appeals to the example of Plato w h o allegedly followed Moses in taking precautions "to prevent foreigners from mix­ ing with them at random." Josephus defends the right of the Jews to refuse admission to persons who have different ideas about G o d and a different mode of life from the Jews on the basis that this is a practice which is c o m m o n to all, "shared not only by Greeks, but by Greeks of the highest reputation" (e.g. the Lacedaemonians). Unlike the inhabitants of Sparta, however, the Jews, "while we have no desire to emulate the customs of others, yet gladly welcome any who wish to share our own". "That," Josephus adds, "May be taken as proof both of humanity ((pitaxvGpcoTuoc) and magnanimity (p,£Y0cA,o\|n)%{a)." In CA 2 . 2 0 9 - 2 1 4 Josephus comments on the attitude taken to aliens by the Law. H e argues that the lawgiver made every effort to "throw them [the laws] open ungrudgingly to any w h o elect to share them." Then he continues, "To all w h o desire to come and live under the same laws with us, he gives a gracious welcome, holding that it is not family ties alone which constitute relationship, but agreement in principles of conduct." In the discussion that follows Josephus further stresses the "gentleness and humanity (fiiLiepoxnxa KCCI (piXavOpamia)" of the Law (CA 2.213), and that "In every particular, [Moses] had an eye on mercy" (CA 2.214). The concern to refute the notion that the Jews are hostile to all other nations is also present in CA at 1.318. Here Josephus is re­ sponding to Lysimachus' claim that Moses instructed the Israelites to "show goodwill to no man" (1.309). H e argues:

O n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of E x o d . 2 2 . 2 8 in A l e x a n d r i a , see P . W . v a n d e r H o r s t , " D e S e p t u a g i n t a - v e r t a l i n g v a n E x o d u s 22.27(28)."

358

PAUL SPILSBURY

F o r a n o a t h of e t e r n a l e n m i t y against those w h o h a d expelled t h e m t h e r e was r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d ; b u t t h a t m e n w h o , in the straits in w h i c h h e represents t h e m to h a v e b e e n , n e e d e d assistance from every q u a r t e r , should declare i m p l a c a b l e w a r o n all m a n k i n d , indicates ex­ t r a o r d i n a r y folly, n o t o n their p a r t , b u t o n the p a r t of the lying historian. 26

Josephus has to contend with a similar calumny in CA 2.121, this time from Apion himself. Josephus reports: "He attributes to us an imaginary oath, and would have it appear that we swear by the God w h o made heaven and earth and sea to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks." In response to this charge, after arguing that it makes no sense because of the geographical separation be­ tween the Jews and the Greeks, Josephus cites the many Greeks who have in fact been attracted to Judaism and who have never heard any such oath. In a speech by Nicolas, the speaker not only appeals for the right of the Jews to conduct their affairs without interference, but goes on to assert that the religion of the Jews contains "nothing hostile to mankind (arcdvGpomov)" (Ant. 16.41). In the biblical paraphrase, this aspect of Josephus' apologetics is seen mosdy clearly in his treatment of Haman's slanders (Ant. 11.212). H a m a n describes the Jews to the king as "a certain wicked nation scattered throughout the habitable land . . . which was unfriendly (OCJIIKTOV) and unsocial (aaupxpuAov) and neither had the same reli­ gion nor practised the same laws as others, [and which was] both by its customs and practices . . . the enemy of your people and of all mankind." Josephus refutes these calumnies in the words of king Artaxerxes whose letter in defence of the Jews is significantly embel­ lished by Josephus (cf. Add Esth. 16. Iff.). After denouncing Haman for his ingratitude and treachery, the king affirms that his anti-Jewish sentiments were "false charges and slanders" against a people "who have done no wrong" (Ant. 11.275). In a further sally against igno­ rance and prejudice the king urges, "In future we must not pay attention to slanders and accusations or to those things of which others attempt to persuade us . . . addressing ourselves to the deeds them­ selves and not to what people say" (Ant. 11.276). O n the contrary, the king continues, "I have observed that the Jews . . . are not evil­ doers but live under the most excellent kind of government and are attached to the G o d w h o has preserved the kingdom for me and our

2 6

I n CA 1.70 J o s e p h u s a c k n o w l e d g e s a b i t t e r e n m i t y b e t w e e n t h e J e w s a n d t h e Egyptians.

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

359

forefathers . . ." (Ant. 11.279). In consequence of all this, Artaxerxes concludes, " I . . . permit the Jews to live in peace under their own laws" (Ant. 11.281). Another important section in Ant. is Solomon's prayer at the dedi­ cation of the temple. Solomon brings his prayer to a close with the following words: A n d this help I ask of T h e e n o t alone for t h e H e b r e w s . . . b u t also if a n y c o m e even from t h e e n d s of t h e e a r t h o r from w h e r e v e r it m a y b e a n d t u r n to T h e e , i m p l o r i n g to receive s o m e kindness, d o T h o u h e a r ­ ken a n d give it t h e m . F o r so w o u l d all m e n k n o w t h a t T h o u Thyself didst desire t h a t this h o u s e should b e built for T h e e in o u r l a n d , a n d also t h a t we a r e n o t i n h u m a n e (a7idv0pa>7toi) b y n a t u r e n o r unfriendly (aXkozpmq) to those w h o a r e n o t of o u r c o u n t r y , b u t wish t h a t all m e n equally should receive aid from T h e e a n d enjoy T h y blessings. (Ant. 8.116-117)

This philosophy of the temple is repeated later when the Samaritans are refused permission to share in the building of the temple. D e ­ spite this refusal, T h e y w o u l d . . . allow t h e m to w o r s h i p t h e r e . . . b u t t h e only t h i n g which they might, if they wished, h a v e in c o m m o n with t h e m , as m i g h t all other m e n , was to c o m e to the sanctuary a n d revere G o d . (Ant. 11.87)

This passage is a classic example of how Josephus maintains the right of the Jews to remain distinct, or separate, from others while at that same time insisting that no hostility towards other nations is thereby implied.

6. Derision of distinctive Jewish practices such as circumcision, sabbath observance, and abstinence from certain foods In CA 2.137ff. Josephus turns to Apion's indictments concerning the sacrifice of domestic animals, abstinence from pork and the practice of circumcision. H e points out, here, that even the Egyptian priests are circumcised and refuse to eat pork (2.141). In Ant. Josephus again shows sensitivity to the kind of concerns expressed in CA. While Sabbath observance is explained in terms similar to those of scripture (Ant. 1.33; 3.91), the food scruples of Daniel and his companions in Ant. 1 0 . 1 9 0 - 1 9 4 are explained not so much in religious terms as in philosophical o n e s . T h e youths, 27

27

Cf. D . S a t r a n , " D a n i e l , Seer, Philosopher, H o l y M a n , " p p . 3 6 - 3 9 .

360

PAUL SPILSBURY

Josephus informs us, "resolved to live austerely" and felt distaste for the food from the king's table. By thus avoiding luxury the young men's souls were "kept pure and fresh for learning" and their bodies made "more vigorous for arduous labour". Josephus' treatment of circumcision requires more lengthy analy­ sis. As part of his barrage of evidence for the antiquity of the Jewish nation in CA Josephus quotes from Herodotus' History 2.104 which states: "The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine admit that they learnt [the practice of circumcision] from the Egyptians" (CA 1.169). Josephus reasons that since the Jews are the only inhabitants of Palestine to practise circumcision Herodotus' reference to the Syrians of Palestine must be a reference to the Jews, and an ancient one at that. Significantly, Josephus quotes from the very same passage in Ant. 8.262, although here Josephus points out that Herodotus had certain deficiencies in his account of the Egyptians' defeat of Rehob o a m (cf. 2 Chr. 12.1-12). Nevertheless, for our purposes it is suffi­ cient to note again that Josephus is already capable of arguing (from sources) in Ant. in a manner that we are accustomed to from CA. Also, in both cases circumcision is taken by Josephus as a distinctive of the Jews, even though he does not deny that other nations also observe the practice. T h e same attitude towards circumcision is evident earlier in Ant. at the time of its divine institution. In 1.192 G o d charges Abraham to circumcise his offspring "to the intent that [they] should be kept from mixing with others." Other than reinforcing what we have al­ ready observed about Josephus' views about Jewish "separateness", this passage also emphasizes the value of circumcision as a marker of Jewish identity. Nevertheless, a little later in the same context, when Isaac is born (1.214), Josephus explains that since Isaac was circum­ cised eight days after birth, this has become the Jewish practise. T h e Arabs w h o follow the precedent of Ishmael, however, circumcise their children at the age of thirteen. Thus, it is the manner or timing of cir­ cumcision that is distinctive and not simply the practice on its own. That these comments do not exhaust the significance of circumci­ sion for Josephus is indicated by his remark in Ant. 1.192, where he promises to expound elsewhere the reasons for the practice. This is probably a reference to his oft-mentioned projected treatise on "Cus­ toms and Causes" which he apparently never completed. W e might 28

2 8

Cf. Ant.

1.25, 2 1 4 ; 3.94, 1 4 3 , 2 1 8 , 2 0 5 , 2 3 0 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ; 4 . 1 9 8 , 3 0 2 ; 1 5 . 3 7 1 ;

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

361

wonder whether he would have commented there on the biblical covenantal significance of the practice which is so conspicuously absent from his paraphrase of the Bible. Leaving such speculation aside, we might also note a definite element of defensiveness in Josephus' treatment of circumcision. This relates not so much to what he says about circumcision as to what he omits from the biblical account. The following examples are revealing, a) In Ant. 1.337-340 Josephus relates the story of the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah and the sub­ sequent vengeance by her brothers Simeon and Levi (cf. Gen. 3 4 . 1 31). Josephus completely omits the use made by the brothers of cir­ cumcision as a means of gaining an advantage over their enemies, b) In Ant. 2.277-280, where Josephus recounts Moses' return to Egypt after his encounter with G o d at the burning bush, he makes no mention of the strange scene enacted in Exodus 4 . 2 4 - 2 6 in which God apparently intends to kill Moses because of the uncircumcision of one of his sons. T h e sheer difficulty of understanding this passage may well account for its omission, but it is significant that, once again, a story in which circumcision features in what might be taken as an unsavoury way is overlooked by our author, c) In Ant. 5 . 2 0 - 2 1 Josephus does not include in his paraphrase the divine c o m m a n d for all Israel to be circumcised (cf. Josh. 5.1-8). Apparently he wants to avoid the Bible's clear admission that the Israelites had been uncircumcised during their wanderings in the wilderness (Josh. 5.5). d) In Ant. 6 . 1 8 6 - 1 8 7 Josephus' David taunts Goliath as worse than a dog, but omits the biblical characterization of Goliath as "This uncircumcised Philistine" (1 Sam. 17.36). e) In Ant. 6.203 Josephus sub­ stitutes six hundred Philistine heads for the two hundred (LXX, one hundred) foreskins required in 1 Samuel 18.27 as a dowry for Saul's daughter Michal. In all of these cases we are justified in suspecting a certain ambivalence in regard to circumcision. Josephus retains it 29

30

31

2 0 . 2 6 8 ; CA 1.92. O n t h e d o u b t f u l suggestion t h a t this w o r k is i d e n t i c a l w i t h CA see L. H . F e l d m a n ' s footnote in L C L Josephus, vol. 10, p . 1 4 3 , n . d . D . A l t s h u l e r ( " O n C u s t o m s a n d C a u s e s , " p . 228) a r g u e s t h a t in l a t e r revisions of t h e Ant. J o s e p h u s d i d in fact i n c l u d e t h e m a t e r i a l o n G o d a n d t h e laws originally i n t e n d e d for a s e p a r a t e work. See also H . P e t e r s e n , " R e a l a n d Alleged L i t e r a r y P r o j e c t s . " T h e a b s e n c e of " c o v e n a n t " from J o s e p h u s p a r a p h r a s e of t h e Bible h a s b e e n discussed at s o m e l e n g t h b y H . W . A t t r i d g e , Interpretation, p p . 7 8 - 9 2 ; a n d B . H . A m a r u , " L a n d T h e o l o g y in J o s e p h u s . " F o r a less plausible e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e p h e ­ n o m e n o n see A. P a u l , " A n t i - C h r i s t i a n M a n i f e s t o . " O n t h e difficulties i n h e r e n t in this p a s s a g e a n d t h e i r t r e a t m e n t in J e w i s h t r a d i ­ tion, see G . V e r m e s , Scripture and Tradition, p p . 1 7 8 - 1 9 2 . Cf. L X X 1 Reg 17.43. 2 9

3 0

31

362

PAUL SPILSBURY

as a distinctive sign of Jewishness, but he is not willing to give too many opportunities to the opponents of the Jews for derisive counter­ attacks. H e thus removes many of the unsavoury biblical associa­ tions of the practice. W e would conclude from this that Josephus was already aware while he wrote Ant. of the kind of issues he found himself confronting during the writing of CA, and his solutions in both cases were closely akin to one another.

Evidence of substantial development from Ant. to C A So far we have noted that many of the primary apologetic concerns of CA and even Josephus' method of dealing with them are well represented in the earlier Ant. In this final section I hope to demon­ strate that even in cases where on the surface CA appears to diverge significantly from Ant., closer study reveals significant connectedness between the two works. I have chosen one issue, the description of the Jewish polity as a "theocracy", as a kind of test case. In a famous passage in CA Josephus refers to the Jewish constitu­ tion as a "theocracy": There is endless variety in the details of the customs and laws in the world at large. To give but a summary enumeration: some peoples have entrusted supreme political power to monarchies, others to oli­ garchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a "the­ ocracy" (GeoKporrioc), placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God. (CA 2.165) Some paragraphs later he reveals that this "theocracy" is mediated through the high priest and the priests under him. H e asks: "Could there be a finer or more equitable polity than the one which sets G o d at the head of the universe (y\ye\id)v TCOV oAxov), which assigns the administration of its highest affairs to the whole body of priests, and entrusts to the supreme high-priest the direction of the other priests" (CA 2.185)? In Ant. Josephus often touches upon the subject of the Jewish con­ stitution but nowhere uses the term theocracy. There his favoured term is "aristocracy". Is this a point of significant divergence between 32

3 2

F o r a fuller discussion of J o s e p h u s ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p a s s a g e s in Ant. see D . R .

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

363

CA and Ant.? I will argue that it is not. Careful analysis of the relevant passages in Ant. reveals that there is a close correlation between the "aristocracy" of Ant. and the "theocracy" of CA. Indeed, the latter is a natural development of the former as it is understood by Josephus. In Ant. 4.223 Josephus has Moses declare: Aristocracy (dpiaxoKpaxia), with the life that is lived thereunder, is indeed the best: let no craving possess you for another polity (rcoAixeia), but be content with this having the laws for your masters and governing all your actions by them; for God sufficeth for your ruler (fiyeuxbv). In this passage aristocracy is equated with the rule of law (specifically Moses Law), which in turn is equated with the rule of G o d . T o appreciate more fully the implication of the term we need to observe his application of it to the history of his people. T h e primary periods during which the Jews were governed by aristocracy were those of Moses himself and of his protege Joshua. It is of great significance to note, therefore, the systematic way in which Josephus alters the biblical narrative to make it conform to his ideal of "aristocracy". In Ant. 4.218 Moses' instructions concerning high-court appeals, which in Deuteronomy 17.9 are to be referred to "the Levitical priest or to the judge" are rendered: "Let them send up the case entire to the holy city and let the high priest and the prophet and the council of elders (f| yepouoioc) meet and pronounce as they think fit." Earlier (4.186), Moses had entrusted the Hebrews to the leadership of Eleazar the high priest, Joshua, the council of elders (yepouoia) and the magistrates of the tribes (xcc xeA,r| xcbv (pu^cov), in that order. In 4.324 it is the council of elders (TI Yepoucuoc), Eleazar the highpriest and Joshua the general w h o escort Moses to the place of his departure. In 5.15 Josephus deliberately adds to Joshua 2.24 that 5

33

34

35

S c h w a r t z , "Jewish C o n s t i t u t i o n s a n d C o m m u n i t y ; " a n d m y " T h e I m a g e of t h e J e w , " pp. 161-170. Cf. 4 . 1 9 6 w h e r e J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s his d e s c r i p t i o n of M o s e s ' L a w w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t : " I w a n t (to describe) t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n (noXixeia)..." (for this t r a n s l a t i o n , see Y. A m i r , "GeoKpccxia," p . 8 6 , n . 7); a n d w i t h t h e qualification: " H e r e t h e n is t h e c o d e of t h o s e laws of o u r s w h i c h t o u c h o u r political c o n s t i t u t i o n (nota/ceia)" (4.198). I n 4 . 3 0 2 h e c o n c l u d e s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e l a w w i t h t h e w o r d s : " S u c h t h e n is t h e constitution (noXixeia) t h a t M o s e s left." Cf. t h e similar f o r m u l a in CA 2 . 1 4 5 : " I desire to give to t h e best of m y ability, a b r i e f a c c o u n t of o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n (noXixex>\ia) as a w h o l e a n d of its d e t a i l s . " Cf. Polybius, Hist 6.4.3 in w h i c h a r i s t o c r a c y is defined as r u l e b y t h e "justest a n d wisest m e n " (ôiKaioiàxcov m l çpoviixcoxàxcov). D e u t . 3 4 . Iff d o e s n o t m e n t i o n a n y s u c h escort o n M o s e s ' last j o u r n e y . J o s e p h u s 3 3

3 4

3 5

364

PAUL

SPILSBURY

on the spies' return from Jericho Joshua reported their findings to Eleazar the high priest and to the council of elders. In 5.43 Josephus' Joshua summons Eleazar and the magistrates (oi ev xekeif that lots may be cast to determine whose guilt caused the defeat at Ai. Joshua 7 includes neither the high priest nor the magistrates. Again, in 5.55 and 57 Josephus introduces the high priest and the council of elders into the negotiations with the scheming Gibeonites. Joshua 9.15 has Joshua and "the leaders of the congregation" (LXX, oi apxovxeq xfiq ouvaycoYfjv) swearing an oath to them but there is no hint of the three-part formulation of Josephus. In the episode of the division of the land of Canaan among the nine-and-a-half tribes Josephus again has Joshua acting in concert with Eleazar, the council of elders and the tribal chiefs ((p\)A,ap%ovxe<;) (5.80), while Joshua 18 has the commander-in-chief acting independently. Finally, in an addition to Joshua 22, Josephus has Joshua, the high priest and the council advise restraint in the episode of the altar of witness beyond the river J o r d a n . There is a clear pattern in these alterations to the biblical narra­ tive. Josephus' Joshua is not allowed to act independently but always with the high priest and a council of some sort (either the yepouaia or the heads of the tribes). Indeed, Joshua is often portrayed as answerable to these groups, and, as was noted above, in 4.186 the high priest is placed before Joshua in Moses' list of the leaders of the people. It has been well noted that in Josephus' biblical narrative "Joshua is made to behave like a constitutional monarch." How­ ever, it is important to note that Josephus never refers to Joshua as a monarch but insists rather that during this period the Hebrews' 6

37

38

39

possibly i n t e n d e d t o i m p l y t h a t M o s e s ' a u t h o r i t y h a d b e e n p a s s e d o n to those w h o w e r e w i t h h i m a t t h e e n d . It s h o u l d b e n o t e d , t h o u g h , t h a t if this is t h e case J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o h a v e d e l i b e r a t e l y m a d e t h e c o u n c i l of elders slighdy less prestigious t h a n E l e a z a r a n d J o s h u a for t h e y a r e dismissed first a n d d o n o t witness M o s e s ' d e p a r t u r e (4.325). A n a r g u m e n t m a y b e m a d e for t h e t r a n s l a t i o n " t h o s e in a u t h o r i t y of t h e tribes", t a k i n g t h e s u c c e e d i n g m r a
3 7

3 8

3 9

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

365

constitution was an aristocracy—a term which now even more clearly bespeaks rule by the high priest and a council. In fact, the term "constitutional monarchy" might better be ap­ plied to Josephus' ideal for the functioning of the kingship. In Ant. 4.224 Moses stipulates that a king should "concede to the laws and to God the possession of superior wisdom, and let him do nothing without the high priest and the counsel of his senators (yepouoiaoTcov)." This raises the question as to what the difference is between Josephus' aristocracy and this kind of constitutional monarchy. T o put the question another way: why, in the story of Samuel and the peoples' request for a king, does Josephus make such an explicit link between Samuel's "hatred for kings" and his "innate righteousness" (oupxpuxoc; 8 i K a i o a u v r | ) ? Or, again, why does Samuel insist that "God is wroth and ill-content at your choice of kingly rule" (6.91)? Samuel reasoned that aristocratic government was "divine and productive of bliss to those w h o adopted it" (6.36). As in the bib­ lical account it is more than the prophet's feelings which are affected by the people's request; G o d himself takes it as a personal affront. Significantly, it is precisely God's kingship that is at issue. Josephus follows 1 Samuel in having G o d console the prophet to the effect that "it was not him w h o m they had spurned, but G o d himself, not wishing him to reign alone (iva JLLTI PaoiA.euon pxSvoq)" (6.38). Simi­ larly, in 6.60 Samuel reproves the people because, forgetting God's benefits, they "rejected his sovereignty (pocaitafa)." H e argues further that it is in their highest interests to have "the best of all rulers at their head and that the best of all was G o d (Geoq 8ercdvxcovapioxoq)" (6.61). In the next line he continues: "Nay, they chose to have a man for their king;" the clear implication being that G o d had been their king beforehand. In the same context the people's choice is referred to as an out4 0

41

42

43

4 0

Cf. 6.294 w h e r e S a m u e l is e u l o g i z e d as " a m a n of j u s t a n d kindly n a t u r e (dvfip xpryoibq xx\\ aiv) a n d for t h a t r e a s o n v e r y d e a r t o G o d . " I n 6.87 t h e p e o p l e c o n f i r m t h a t S a m u e l h a d r u l e d t h e m " w i t h h o l i n e s s (oaicoq) a n d j u s t i c e (8iKaico<;)." J o s e p h u s embellishes S a m u e l ' s t o r m e n t o v e r this issue; cf. 1 S a m . 8.6. Cf. 1 S a m . 8.7: " T h e y h a v e n o t r e j e c t e d y o u , for t h e y h a v e r e j e c t e d M e f r o m b e i n g king o v e r t h e m ( L X X xov [ri\ p a o i t a v e i v en' oroicov)." T h i s m a y p r o v i d e a clue as t o w h y J o s e p h u s c h o s e t h e t e r m " a r i s t o c r a c y " t o describe t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e J e w s . L. H . F e l d m a n ( " S a m u e l , " p p . 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 a n d n. 50), h o w e v e r , suggests t h a t J o s e p h u s u s e d t h e t e r m " a r i s t o c r a c y " t o refer t o " t h e best f o r m of g o v e r n m e n t " . 8{K(XIO<; KOU

41

4 2

4 3

366

PAUL SPILSBURY 44

rage (uppiq) to God. In Ant. 6 . 8 8 ~ 9 4 Samuel expounds to the people "what great impiety [they] have shown towards God in asking for a king". H e outlines God's record of care for their forebears from the time of Jacob, how he had repeatedly brought them deliverance from their woes without the need for a king, using only Moses and Aaron, and later the likes of Jephthah and Gideon. Despite all this, "Ye have been traitors to His worship and His religion" (6.90). T h e im­ piety of kingship is that it replaces G o d with a human king. This conclusion is supported by the statement in Ant. 4.185 where Moses assures the people, after committing them to "the sober guid­ ance of the laws" and to "the ordered scheme of the constitution", that G o d "who heretofore has governed (fiyejuoveuaaq) you, and by whose will I have been of service to you, will not at this point set a term to his providence." It is in this context too, as we have already noted, that Moses commits the people into the hands of the high priest, Joshua and the council. Josephus thus does not ultimately reject kingship absolutely. Moses himself made allowance for the king to act according to the law and in consultation with the high priest and the council of elders (4.224). Nevertheless, even in that context it is clearly an inferior option. T h e best option was the rulership of G o d mediated through the high priest and the council. In Ant. Josephus elected to call this kind of government "aristocracy". By the time he wrote G4, however, he had decided upon a new term to express his ideal. T h e new term, "theocracy", does not rep­ resent a significant change in Josephus' thinking on the issue. It sim­ ply makes explicit what is already an important motif in Ant.: the kingship of God. 45

46

4 4

Cf. 1 S a m . 1 2 . 1 2 - 2 5 . N o useful p u r p o s e is s e r v e d b y m a k i n g distinctions b e t w e e n G o d as TIYEJICOV a n d G o d as king. I n 4 . 2 2 3 w h e r e J o s e p h u s prefaces his d e s c r i p t i o n of M o s e s ' rul­ ings c o n c e r n i n g kings, a n d w h e r e , as w e h a v e seen, h e a d v o c a t e s " a r i s t o c r a c y " as t h e best f r o m of g o v e r n m e n t , h e also asserts t h a t " G o d sufficeth for y o u r ruler (fyyeincbv)." H e r e t o o t h e h u m a n k i n g is p l a c e d o v e r a g a i n s t t h e divine o n e . D . R . S c h w a r t z h a s a r g u e d ("Jewish C o n s t i t u t i o n s , " p . 3 4 , n. 15) t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s unwill­ i n g t o call G o d k i n g , " a p p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e J e w i s h rebels g a v e t h a t e p i t h e t a n a n t i R o m a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " W e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t shy a w a y from t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of G o d as king. F u r t h e r , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t in J o s e p h u s ' d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e c o n v i c t i o n s of t h e rebellious F o u r t h P h i l o s o p h y (18.23) it is as fiyeficbv a n d n o t as k i n g t h a t J u d a s a n d his followers u n d e r s t a n d G o d . J o s e p h u s w a s t h e r e f o r e a p p a r e n d y n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d to m a k e a distinction b e t w e e n t h e w a y he a n d the a n t i - R o m a n parties spoke a b o u t G o d . S e e also 6 . 9 3 . 4 5

4 6

CONTRA APIONEM AND ANTIQUITATES

JUDAICAE

367

Conclusion The above discussion points towards a close relationship between CA and Ant. Attitudes expressed in a narrative form in the latter are found in a more systematic and propositional form in the former. What was set out obliquely in the national history of the Jews is set out more directly in CA. Overall, there is a striking correlation be­ tween the concerns and the methods of the two works. While the writing of CA may be an admission by Josephus of the failure of Ant. to accomplish the task for which it was intended, the two works should be regarded as companion works, especially if our concern is to understand the apologetics of Josephus.

Bibliography Altshuler, D . " T h e T r e a t i s e ' O n C u s t o m s a n d C a u s e s ' b y Flavius J o s e p h u s , " JQR n.s. 6 9 (1979) 2 2 6 - 3 2 . A m a r u , B. H . " L a n d T h e o l o g y in J o s e p h u s ' Jewish Antiquities" JQR n.s. 71 ( 1 9 8 0 1981) 2 0 1 - 2 2 9 . A m i r , Y. "OeoKpcma as a C o n c e p t of Political P h i l o s o p h y : J o s e p h u s ' P r e s e n t a t i o n of M o s e s ' Politeia," SCI 8 - 9 ( 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 8 8 ) 8 3 - 1 0 5 . A t t r i d g e , H . W . The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. H D R 7; Missoula: S c h o l a r s Press, 1976. Belkin, S. " T h e A l e x a n d r i a n S o u r c e for C o n t r a A p i o n e m I I , " JQR n.s. 27 (1936— 1937) 1-32. C o h e n , S. J . D . Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. C S C T 8. L e i d e n : E . J . Brill, 1979. C o l s o n , F. H . , G . H . W h i t a k e r , J . W . E a r p a n d R . M a r c u s e d d . a n d t r a n s . Philo. 12 vols; L C L . C a m b r i d g e , M S . a n d L o n d o n : H a r v a r d a n d H e i n e m a n n , 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 5 3 . F e l d m a n , L. H . " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of M o s e s , " JQR P a r t O n e 8 2 ( 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) 2 8 5 3 2 8 ; P a r t T w o 8 3 (1992) 7 - 5 0 ; P a r t T h r e e 8 3 (1993) 3 0 1 - 3 3 0 . . " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t of S a m u e l , " Abr-Nahrain 3 0 (1992) 1 0 3 - 1 4 5 . H a t a , G . " T h e S t o r y of M o s e s I n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n t h e C o n t e x t of A n t i - S e m i t i s m , " (translated b y K . T s u r u m a t s u ) in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p p . 1 8 0 - 1 9 7 . E d i t e d b y L. H . F e l d m a n a n d G . H a t a . L e i d e n : E . J . Brill, 1987. H o l l a d a y , C . R . Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: a critique of this category in New Tes­ tament Christology. S B L D S 4 0 ; M i s s o u l a : S c h o l a r s Press, 1977. H ö l s c h e r , G . " J o s e p h u s , " P W 9 (1916) 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 . H o r b u r y , W . " T h e T w e l v e a n d t h e P h y l a r c h s , " NTS 3 2 (1986) 5 0 3 - 5 2 7 . M e e k s , W . A. The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. S u p N T 14; L e i d e n : E. J . Brill, 1967. P a t o n , W . R . ed. a n d t r a n s . Polybius. The Histories. 6 vols.; L C L . C a m b r i d g e , M S . and London: Harvard and Heinemann, 1922-1923. P a u l , A. "Flavius J o s e p h u s ' Antiquities of the Jews: A n A n t i - C h r i s t i a n M a n i f e s t o , " NTS 31 (1985) 4 7 3 - 4 8 0 . P e t e r s e n , H . " T h e R e a l a n d Alleged L i t e r a r y Projects of J o s e p h u s , " AJPh 79 (1958) 259-274.

368

PAUL SPILSBURY

R a j a k , T . "Flavius J o s e p h u s : J e w i s h H i s t o r y a n d t h e G r e e k W o r l d , " 2 vols. D . Phil. diss., U n i v e r s i t y of O x f o r d , 1974. R a j a k , T . Josephus. The Historian and His Society. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress, 1984. R i c h a r d s , G . C . " T h e C o m p o s i t i o n of J o s e p h u s Antiquities;' C £ 3 3 (1939) 3 6 - 4 0 . S a t r a n , D . " D a n i e l , S e e r , P h i l o s o p h e r , H o l y M a n , " in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. S B L S C S 12; p p . 3 3 - 4 8 . E d i t e d b y J . J . Collins a n d G . W . E. N i c k e l s b u r g . C h i c o : S c h o l a r s Press, 1980. S c h u r e r , E . The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 EC-AD 135). R e v . English version; 4 vols. E d i t e d b y G . V e r m e s , F . M i l l a r a n d M . G o o d m a n . Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark Ltd, 1973. S c h w a r t z , D . R . " J o s e p h u s o n J e w i s h C o n s t i t u t i o n s a n d C o m m u n i t y , " SCI 1 (1983— 84) 3 0 - 5 2 . S c h w a r t z , S. Josephus and Judaean Politics. C S C T 18; L e i d e n : E . J . Brill, 1990. S h u t t , R . J . H . Studies in Josephus. L o n d o n : S P C K , 1 9 6 1 . Spilsbury, P . " T h e I m a g e of t h e J e w in J o s e p h u s ' Biblical P a r a p h r a s e , " P h D diss., U n i v e r s i t y of C a m b r i d g e , 1994. T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . Josephus. The Man and the Historian. N e w Y o r k : J e w i s h Institute of R e l i g i o n Press, 1929. T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . , R . M a r c u s , A. W i k g r e n a n d L. H . F e l d m a n e d d . a n d t r a n s . Josephus. 10 vols; L C L . C a m b r i d g e , M S . a n d L o n d o n : H a r v a r d a n d H e i n e m a n n , 1926-1965. T i e d e , D . L . The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. S B L D S 1; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972. v a n d e r H o r s t , P . W . " ' G i j zult v a n g o d e n g e e n k w a a d s p r e k e n ' : D e S e p t u a g i n t a v e r t a l i n g v a n E x o d u s 2 2 . 2 7 (28), h a a r a c h t e r g r o n d e n i n v l o e d , " NedTheolTyd 4 6 (1992) 1 9 2 - 1 9 8 . V e r m e s , G . Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. 2 n d rev. e d . S P B 4; L e i d e n : E . J . Brill, 1973. . " A S u m m a r y of t h e L a w b y Flavius J o s e p h u s , " NT 2 4 (1982) 2 8 9 - 3 0 3 . 5

CONTRA APIONEM

AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

M I C H A E L E.

HARDWIGK

O'Fallon, Illinois

Critical to any minority religion seeking acceptance in the wider so­ ciety is to achieve some level of credibility so that it may function and prosper unhindered by the majority of the population. Judaism, seeking to escape physical and intellectual ostracism in Europe prior to the nineteenth century, worked diligently to prove that one could be a good J e w as well as a good German, Englishman or American. A contemporary example would be the situation of Islam in the United States and Western Europe. T h e ignorance of most non-Muslims about Islam and the concerns over radical and anti-Western elements among the faithful have led many to fear this rapidly growing reli­ gion in the "Christian" West. Any minority religion which seeks growth, particularly the case for a faith which proselytizes, must gain some measure of good will, or at least tolerance, by the non-believing majority. Christianity experienced this same problem in the R o m a n world until the time it became the official religion of the state. From its inception as a heretical Jewish sect to the final separation from its mother religion, the Church had to seek some measure of social acceptance. Later generations of Christians might focus on their belief in the power of the Gospel to convince and convert, but the G o o d News would have found no ears upon which to fall had adjectives such as anti-social, barbaric and immoral been universally applied to the noun Christian. T h e J e w in the late nineteenth and early twen­ tieth century West needed to demonstrate that Jewish participation in society would make a positive contribution to the nation due to the virtues taught by Judaism. Likewise, the Christian in the first centuries of the C o m m o n Era had to show that the Church was a positive force in society and the Gospel a message which should be welcomed rather than scorned. The need for explanation and self-definition was faced not only by Christianity but by the parent as well. Contra Apionem represents Josephus' attempt to correct misperceptions, confusion and ignorance

370

MICHAEL HARDWICK

about Judaism in the face of its detractors. Aware that the future of his people depended in large part on R o m a n tolerance and proud of his heritage, Josephus, in his apology, attempts not only to make Judaism comprehensible but also appear virtuous and worthy of re­ spect. That this defense of Judaism might have been of interest to apologists of Judaism's offspring should seem quite reasonable. How­ ever, the starding thing is the extent to which Contra Apionem would become the model for Christian apologetics by the time of Eusebius, historian, theologian and bishop of Caesaria (d. c. 340 CE). This study will trace the use of Contra Apionem as a model for Christian apologetic literature. This task is useful for three reasons: Since apologetics is about self-definition, we can obtain a glimpse into the Christian mind of another era. Secondly, we can gain an appreciation as to why Josephus was preserved by the Church while being neglected by his co-religionists. Finally, we can trace part of the Church's schizophrenic relationship with Judaism without which it would not have existed but which it finally rejected after expropri­ ating everything deemed valuable and denying the mother religion's claims to its own validity. A word on our approach to this matter is in order. W e shall ex­ amine those writers w h o made use of Contra Apionem either by attri­ bution or for which there is some verbal connection. Sharing a c o m m o n theme will not suffice. For example, we shall discover that the antiquity of Moses as confirming Jewish legitimacy is a Josephan theme commonly echoed in Christian literature. However, Josephus was not the only writer in late antiquity to develop this approach and we cannot assume that Contra Apionem would have been the most likely source for the Christian apologist. This study will more likely satisfy the historian rather than the text critic. T h e state of transmission for much of patristic literature precludes using it as an authority for reconstruction of dubious Josephan readings. Further, we shall discover that Josephus is fre1

2

1

F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of J o s e p h a n m a t e r i a l , see H . S c h r e c k e n b e r g , Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden, 1972) a n d m y o w n Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature Through Eusebius (At­ l a n t a , 1989). T h e i m p o r t a n c e of M o s e s ' a n t i q u i t y a n d his d e s c r i p t i o n as a w i s e - m a n o r p h i ­ losopher, a c o n c e p t familiar to the s u r r o u n d i n g culture, goes b a c k at least to H e c a t a e u s of A b d e r a (fourth c e n t u r y B C E ) . see B. Z . W a c h o l d e r , Eupolemos. A Study of JudeoGreek Literature ( C i n c i n n a t i , 1974), 85fT. a n d J . G . G a g e r , Moses in Greco-Roman Pagan­ ism (Nashville, 1972), 2 5 - 3 7 . 2

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

371

quently paraphrased and sometimes simply mentioned which may well indicate second-hand awareness of Contra Apionem. Thus the intel­ lectual historian may be satisfied that he or she can trace the use of Contra Apionem by Christian apologists, but we often cannot say what that text actually looked like.

Theophilus of Antioch Theophilus, of whom little is known except from Eusebius (H.E. 4.20), became the sixth bishop of Antioch in the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (168 CE). His apology, To Autolycus, was written sometime after 169 C E given the chronology in the third book of Autolycus. Theophilus' chronological list ends with the death of the emperor Verus which occurred in 169 C E (3.27). To Autolycus consists of three books whose main use by the Church was to counteract the Marcionites who rejected the authority of the Old Testament. This anti-Marcionite element in the work explains its well documented use in both the western and eastern halves of the Church although the third book, of particular concern for our investigations, appears to have been less important. Book three of To Autolycus, which may have circulated separately from the first two books deemed useful in the struggle against the Marcionites, is particularly interested in the status of Christian virtue and antiquity vis a vis Hellenism. Theophilus sets about to convince Autolycus, w h o m we learn in 1.1 to be a heathen and scorner of Christianity, of the truth of the Gospel in the face of the flawed and bankrupt imaging of the Greek philosophers and poets. T o Theophilus, there can be no compromise between Greek thought and the Christian faith. T h e two are impla­ cable foes: Reason and philosophy, the tools of the Greeks, stand opposed to the Gospel. Book three of To Autolycus will demonstrate that the pagan critics of Christianity who pride themselves on their philosophers and poets are themselves guilty of foolish and wicked notions. W e can outline the work as follows: 3

3

R o b e r t M . G r a n t , " T h e T e x t u a l T r a d i t i o n of T h e o p h i l u s of A n t i o c h , " VC 6 [1952], 146-159.

372

MICHAEL HARDWICK

Chapter(s) 1 Theophilus will further work to convince Autolycus of his error. 2~8 T h e opinions of the philosophers and the poets are not only contradictory but promote inequity. 9-15 Theophilus contrasts the wickedness of paganism with the righteous doctrines of Christianity. 1 6 - 2 5 Christian doctrine is more ancient, reliable, and consistent than that of the philosophers and the poets. Theophilus outlines biblical history to demonstrate the antiquity of Moses and the Hebrews. 2 6 - 2 9 T h e antiquity and accuracy of Hebrew writings are contrasted with the more recent and more likely inaccurate Greek literature. 30 T h e newness of Greek knowledge and the sinfulness of Greek authors account for their silence regarding biblical history. By and large, Theophilus cites Greek authorities only briefly. Homer and Hesiod are cited at some length, but most of the Greeks are mentioned only in passing. In To Autolycus 2.7, Theophilus ridicules Greek thought as addled, pointing to Aristophanes's notion that the world was hatched from an egg. Such mythological ideas prove to Theophilus that Greek thought is absurd and unworthy of serious consideration. Besides being foolish, Theophilus also accuses the Hellenistic writers of internal inconsistency: 4

F o r t h e things w h i c h they d e c l a r e d convict t h e m of speaking inconsistently, a n d t h e majority of t h e m destroyed their o w n doctrines. F o r n o t only d i d they refute e a c h o t h e r b u t s o m e also a n n u l l e d their o w n doctrines so t h a t their fame h a s resulted in s h a m e a n d folly. (To Autolycus 3.3) 5

4

C i t a t i o n s in To Autolycus i n c l u d e : A r i s t o p h a n e s , A r a t u s , S o p h o c l e s , S i m o n i d e s , Euripides, M e n a n d e r t h e E p h e s i a n , T h e s t i u s , Aeschylus, P i n d a r , Archilocus, Dionysius, Ariston, a n d P h i l e m o n . F u r t h e r , h e notes opinions of Plato, Satyrus, H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y dides, P y t h a g o r a s , E p i c u r u s , E m p e d o c l e s , A e s c u l a p i u s , Z e n o , D i o g e n e s , C l e a n t h e s , Critias, P r o t a g o r a s of A b d e r a , E u h e m e r u s , M a n e t h o t h e E g y p t i a n , a n d t h e C h a l d e a n p h i l o s o p h e r Berossus. U s e d h e r e is t h e text e d i t e d b y J . C . T . O t t o (Theophili Episcopi Antiocheni Ad Autolycum. Libri Tres, C o r p u s A p o l o g e t a r u m C h r i s t i a n o r u m 8 [ J e n a , 1861]): K m yap d etyaaav aired eX&yxei awoix;, fi doTj^cova eipr|Kaoiv, Kai id iSia ööy^axa oi nXeiovt; CHJTCÖV KaxeXvaav oi) yap dAAiftoix; (lövov dvexpeyav, aXX r\8r\ xiveq Kai xd eamoov Soyiiaxa dK\)pa 5

ETcoixiaav, oxree f| 8ö£a atiidW eiq dxi|iiav Kai jicopiav excoptiaev*

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

373

The Greeks are also guilty of teaching immorality. Greek gods prac­ ticed both cannibalism (3.5) and incest (3.6). Even Herodotus, among the most notable Greek thinkers, narrates an account of children being eaten by their parents. T o Theophilus, such irresponsible be­ havior by Herodotus does nothing short of corrupting his readers: "Oh! The mind of those who thus precisely philosophized and profess philosophy! For they who taught these doctrines have filled the world with iniquity" (3.5). Theophilus' final criticism of the Greek philosophers and poets is significant to our interest: T h e Greeks are simply too new a culture to be taken seriously. Greek culture does not extend far enough back in time to know the origins of the world (2.33). Theophilus com­ pares more ancient, non-Greek writers with their later Greek coun­ terparts to demonstrate that Greek literature is a new phenomenon. For example, Berossus, the Chaldean writer from Alexander's time, is said to have instructed the too nouveau Greeks in Chaldean litera­ ture (3.29). For Theophilus, antiquity is the real test of authority: "Hence one can see how much more ancient and true our sacred writings are than those of the Greeks and the Egyptians or any other historians" (3.26). Further, if the relative novelty and resulting igno­ rance of Greek literature detracts from its authority, that same novelty and ignorance led the Greek to sin by defaming the truth of the Gospel and slandering Christians (3.30). For Theophilus, the authority and virtue of Christianity rests with its antiquity. Greek thought, on the other hand, is a relatively new phenomenon which thus spurns the truth of Christ out of ignorance. For the latter part of this argument, Theophilus need only cite the Greeks' own mythology, already deemed absurd in Late Antiquity, and demonstrate that the Greeks gained knowledge from more an­ cient writers from the East. T h e former part of Theophilus' thesis, that Christianity is more ancient and thus more reliable, requires proof and for that Theophilus will employ Contra Apionem. N o t e , 6

7

6

& xfj<; 8iavoia<; xcov oikox; dKpiprix; <j)iA.oao<|>Ticdvxa>v Kai (|>iA,ooo(|)iav eTcayyeXXoiLievcov! Oi yap Toruxa Soynaxiaavxeq xdv KOG^IOV daepeiaq evercA^oav. I n Bell. 6 . 2 0 1 - 2 0 9 , J o s e p h u s r e c o u n t s a story o f a c e r t a i n M a r i a w h o m u r d e r e d a n d c a n n i b a l i s e d h e r infant son d u r i n g the siege of J e r u s a l e m . T h e J o s e p h a n a c c o u n t , w h i c h d e p i c t s t h e h o r r o r s of the J e w i s h W a r , d o e s n o t d r a w T h e o p h i l u s ' criticism as d o e s H e r o d o t u s . C l e a r l y w h a t troubles T h e o p h i l u s is t h a t t h e G r e e k dieties i n d u l g e in s u c h p r a c t i c e s a n d thus model the most reprehensible h u m a n conduct. ' Evx£\)06v opdv eoxw Ticoq dp%ai6xepa Kai dAji0ecxepa 8eiKvuxai xd iepd ypdmiaxa xd Ka0' fmdq eivai xcov Ka0'"EAArivaq Kai AiYimxioax;, x\ ei Kai xivaq exepovq iaxopioypd^oix;. 7

374

MICHAEL HARDWICK

however, that a link between antiquity and authority is not a postu­ late questioned or deemed necessary to prove. This postulate was not invented by either Theophilus or Josephus but is part and parcel of the culture. Theophilus may reject Greek philosophy and history as inimicable to the Gospel, but the assumption that greater antiq­ uity means greater authority in hellenistic thought is not doubted. Theophilus' difficulty will be to show how Christianity, viewed by its detractors as a recent and peculiar offshoot of Judaism, qualified as an ancient, and thus reliable, authority. If Theophilus can use any number of pagan writers to demon­ strate that Greeks are not the ancient authorities they claim to be, he needs Josephus and Contra Apionem to establish the Church's cre­ dentials. O f all the Josephan corpus, Contra Apionem is the most im­ portant and influential to him. Critical to Theophilus' apology is the need to demonstrate that the biblical books antedated the Trojan war and thus the greatest luminary in the Greek literary firmament: H o m e r (Autolycus 3.23). Theophilus follows Contra Apionem closely with respect to content although he generally paraphrases rather than cites. The Egyptian historian Manetho and his chronology of the Egyptian pharaohs appear in both Autolycus 3.21 and CA 1.93-102. For both Josephus and Theophilus, the importance of Manetho's chronology is that it demonstrates the antiquity of Moses. Manetho's evidence proves to both Theophilus and Josephus that Moses antedated the Trojan war (and Homer) by almost a millennium (Autolycus 3.21 and CA 1.104). T h e antiquity of the Solomonic Temple is of concern in Autolycus 3.22 and CA 1.106-126. T h e construction of the Temple is set at 143 years and 8 months prior to the Tyrian founding of Carthage. Both Theophilus and Josephus provide a chronology of Tyrian kings from Hiram, neighbor and fellow monarch of Solomon, to Pygmalion, whose sister built Carthage. To Autolycus continues with a biblical chronology running from Adam to the Babylonian Captivity (3.24-25) and then a chronology of the R o m a n emperors (3.27). Each of these chronologies is preceded (3.23 and 3.26) with a discussion of why the Greeks could not be knowl­ edgeable about these periods due to their lateness on the historical scene. T h e Phoenician, Egyptian and the Hebrew literature are more reliable guides to what was then the distant past due to their great antiquity. Josephus does not provide comparable chronologies in Contra Apionem to what we read here in To Autolycus, but Josephus does refer his readers to the chronology in his Antiquities for events prior to the

375

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

building of the Temple (CA 1.127). Theophilus, following Josephus' line of thought in CA 1, simply includes what Josephus does not care to review in his apology. Theophilus continues by tracing the salient points of the Babylo­ nian Captivity, the rise of Persia under Cyrus and the building of the second Temple during the reign of Darius (Autolycus 3.25 and CA 1.128-154). T h e Chaldean historian Berossus, who is said to have introduced Chaldean literature and history to the Greeks, is impor­ tant because his witness supports aspects of the biblical testimony concerning the Flood, the Exile and the Persian period [Autolycus 3.29 and CA 1.128ff.). Although Theophilus was read in both the western and eastern Church, the transmission of To Autolycus is problematic to reconstruct. The extant citations simply do not permit much improvement to the oldest text, Codex Marcianus (Venetus graecus), which belongs to either the tenth or eleventh century. Numerous omissions and other scribal errors in the text of To Autolycus make it impossible to write with any certitude about the text of Contra Apionem used by Theophilus. Niese was compelled to use the edition prepared by J. Otto based upon Codex Marcianus in his apparatus despite its difficulties. Besides the textual problems in the extant copy of To Autolycus, we must deal with the fact that Theophilus did not cite the Josephan material, however closely he may have followed Josephus' line of thought. For example, we have already noted that Josephus did not actually provide a biblical chronology in Contra Apionem but referred his readers back to the Antiquities. Theophilus, on the other hand, does provide a detailed chronology for the material drawn from Contra Apionem. Josephus, drawing from Berossus, includes detailed informa­ tion on Babylonian history (CA 1.134-141) not included in To Autolycus. A significant problem to anyone interested in comparing the texts of To Autolycus and Contra Apionem involves the Egyptian chronology of the pharaohs' reigns. 8

Contra Apionem (Niese)

To Autolycus (Otto)

Tethmosis, 25 years, 4 months Chebron, 13 years Amenophis, 20 years, 7 months Amesses 21 years, 9 months

Moses (corr. Tethmosis), same same same Amesse, 21 years, 1 month

B. Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera. Edidit et apparatu critico instruxit (Berlin, 1889), 5:ix.

376

MICHAEL HARD WICK

M e p h r e s , 12 years, 9 m o n t h s M e p h r a m o u t h o s i s , 25 years, 10 m o n t h s T h m o s i s , 9 years, 8 m o n t h s A m e n o p h i s , 30 years, 10 m o n t h s O r u s , 36 years, 5 m o n t h s d a u g h t e r , 12 years, 1 m o n t h R a t h o t i s , 9 years A k e n c h e r e s , 12 years, 5 m o n t h s A k e n c h e r e s , 12 years, 3 m o n t h s A r m a i s , 30 years, 1 m o n t h R a m e s e s , 1 year, 4 m o n t h s Armesses M i a m o u n , 66 years, 2 months A m e n o p h i s , 19 years, 6 m o n t h s S e t h o s - R a m e s s e s (no years)

same Mephrammouthosis, 20 years, 10 m o n t h s T u t h m o s e s , same D a m p h e n o p i s , same same same 10 years, 3 m o n t h s absent absent M e r c h e r e s , same same, 4 years, 1 m o n t h same Messes M i a m m o u , same same Thoissos a n d Ramesses, 10 years

Citing Manetho, Josephus lists 18 monarchs who reigned a total of 393 years (CA 1.94-103). This total of 393 years (1.103) includes ten years for the reign of Sethos-Ramesses although the ten year figure does not actually appear after Sethos-Ramesses' name in 1.98. To Autolycus contains ten discrepancies in the names of the pharaohs and five differences with regard to the length of their reigns. The errors in name range from mere errors in spelling to omission of two monarchs found in t h e j o s e p h a n list. Further, To Autolycus 3. 21 notes that the total figure for all the reigns is 313 years, which is incorrect. T h e Venice manuscript of To Autolycus is to be corrected because Tertullian (Apolog. 19), who read To Autolycus, agrees with the 393 years of Contra Apionem. W e find a similar problem in the Tyrian chronology (CA 1.117126 and Autolycus 3.22): 9

Contra Apionem

To Autolycus

H e i r o m o s , 34 years Balbazeros, 17 years A b d a s t a p t o s , 9 years M e t h o u s a s t a r t o s , 12 years

same (reign n o t given) same absent same

9

R o b e r t M . G r a n t ("Notes o n t h e T e x t of T h e o p h i l u s , T o A u t o l y c u s I I I , " VC 12 [ 1 9 5 8 ] , 1 3 6 - 1 4 4 ) c o m p a r e s t h e t h i r d b o o k of t h e T h e o p h i l a n V e n i c e m a n u s c r i p t w i t h C o d e x L a u r e n t i a n u s . T h i s m s is n o t t h e only G r e e k m s of CA b u t o t h e r s a p ­ p e a r t o b e copies of L a u r e n t i a n u s .

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

A s t h a r u m o s , 9 years Phelletos, 8 m o n t h s Eithobalos, 32 years Balezoros, 6 years M e t t e n o s , 29 years Pygmalion, 47 years

377

same Helles, s a m e Iouthobalos, same Bazoros, s a m e same s a m e , 7 years

Not only is there inconsistency with respect to the Josephan list, but Theophilus' total number of years between the beginning of Hiram's reign and the founding of Carthage does not agree with the numbers in his list. Although Theophilus could follow Josephus quite closely, we are left to wonder if these discrepancies might be attributed to scribal error during transmission, the use of another undisclosed source or simply carelessness on the part of Theophilus. Sadly, the answer to this question eludes us. For both Josephus and Theophilus, the antiquity of their faiths is expected to convey legitimacy even to their hellenistic detractors. The greater the antiquity of their tradition equated to the greater the authority and respect due to their religion. That biblical litera­ ture is, according to their respective arguments, more ancient even than Homer, means that what is taught in Jewish Scripture is more authoritative than the world view expressed in Greek philosophy and poetry. What Theophilus does not do in his apology and what leads us to pose an important question is that the Christian apologist does not explain why the Church is the inheritor of Jewish tradition. For Josephus to write of the antiquity of his tradition was surely credible to his Gentile readership. However, to the non-Christian of the sec­ ond century, the Church was not Jewish. W e are not dealing with the Church of Paul struggling with how to incorporate Gentiles into what was still a Jewish sect. By the latter half of the second century, the Church was a Gentile phenomenon although possessing a Jewish minority. T h e Church was a relatively new p h e n o m e n o n without any ancient roots of its own. T h e assumption that the Church was heir to Jewish Scripture and whatever part of Jewish tradition it esteemed was part and parcel of the notion of the Church as the new Israel. However reasonable this might have seemed within the Christian community, it would still have required explanation to 10

10

Ibid., 139 a n d 140. G r a n t n o t e s t h a t t h e V e n i c e m a n u s c r i p t is consistent w i t h r e g a r d to m a t h e m a t i c a l e r r o r . T h e o p h i l u s ' c h r o n o l o g i e s a r e g e n e r a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c .

378

MICHAEL HARDWICK

11

the non-Christian w o r l d . That Origen should have needed to explain it to Celsus, w h o m we will soon encounter, is a perfect ex­ ample. That Theophilus did not deem this necessary suggests that To Autolycus was primarily directed at the Christian community in response to outside detractors of the Christian faith. A contemporary parallel would be the books written by those Christians attempting to "prove" the Resurrection or the historical reliability of the Gos­ pels. It is doubtful whether any non-Christian would respond posi­ tively to this modern form of apologetics, but it certainly serves the needs of many w h o feel threatened by contemporary historical and literary criticism of the Bible. W h y do we not see Contra Apionem used by Christian apologists before Theophilus? T w o reasons come readily to mind: Christian thought had not arrived at a point in its historical development that it sought interaction with the greater, non-Christian world. Christian self-definition was based almost entirely upon interpretation of Scrip­ ture. T h e various sectarian movements and heresies of the second century occupied the Church more than dialogue with non-Christian thinkers. Even Justin Martyr, whose apologetic works look beyond the Christian community to the Jewish, is bibliocentric. His argu­ ments would have been in many ways irrelevant to Celsus. For Josephus to be useful as an apologetic tool required the impetus of a need to explain the Gospel to a wider audience. Josephus was a known historian whose testimony was accorded respect in Late An­ tiquity. Second, the intellectual gulf between Christian and nonChristian was breaking down. For the Apostolic Fathers, Scripture was all sufficient. Justin may have worn his philosopher's gown with pride but philosophy was still suspect for many. Once the idea took root that history and philosophy could be used to support the Gospel, Josephus became a lot more attractive to Christian apologetics.

Pseudo-Justin Pseudo-Justin is perhaps the most elusive apologist we will encoun­ ter. W e know nothing about the writer of the Exhortation to the Greeks

11

L o u i s F e l d m a n (Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian [ P r i n c e t o n , 1 9 9 3 ] , 1 7 7 - 1 7 8 ) h a s n o t e d t h a t in t h e first c e n t u r y B C E t h e i m p o r t a n c e of a n t i q u i t y for t h e R o m a n s w a s stressed b y C i c e r o (De Legibus

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN

APOLOGETICS

379

(Cohortatio ad Graecos or AOrOE I I A P A I N E T I K O I IIPOZ E A A H N A Z ) . More importantly for our task, we cannot be certain to what extent or even if this Christian apologist was familiar at all with Contra Apionem. What is most interesting about the work is that the apologist's intent was to prove truth of Christianity without resorting to Scrip­ ture but to use only those writers of antiquity judged authoritative by a non-Christian readership. Regarding the identity and date of Pseudo-Justin, we are at some disadvantage. T h e author of the Exhortation could not be the secondcentury Justin Martyr. First, the two writers manifest widely different literary styles. Second, Justin's approach was to recognize and affirm the value of Greek philosophy where it was not in conflict with the Gospel, while Pseudo-Justin rejects Greek thought out of hand. Justin saw philosophy as fulfilled by Christian while Pseudo-Justin views it as an implacable foe. T h e unknown apologist may use hellenistic writers, but Hellenism in the hands of Pseudo-Justin is a weapon to destroy its proponents. There is no consensus on dating the Exhortation to the Greeks. T h e ongoing conflict with paganism does seem to indicate a date before the fourth century. However, beyond that assumption we can only conjecture. Homer is singled out as the chief villain in the Exhortation to the Greeks. H e , with all those w h o follow him, are responsible for trans­ mitting an absurd collection of myths and foisting them upon later generations. That many non-Christians had come to reject the myths of the ancients is lost upon Pseudo-Justin. T h e various philosophical schools come in for their share of ridicule; however, what they share is a c o m m o n heritage in Homeric literature with its all too fallible deities. In chapter nine of the Exhortation, Pseudo-Justin seeks to prove the considerably greater antiquity, and thus authority, of Moses, the law­ giver and first prophet. Moses is described as the first teacher of religion, Geoaepeias 5 i 8 a a K a X o u s , by which term the apologist refers to H o m e r and all the subsequent Greek philosophers and poets. Pseudo-Justin drops the names of notable writers without actually 12

13

2.10.27 a n d De Natura Deorum 3 . 1 . 5 - 4 . 1 0 ) e v e n as it w a s for m o r e a n c i e n t c u l t u r e s to t h e East given t h e e v i d e n c e of Berossus a n d M a n e t h o in t h e t h i r d c e n t u r y B C E . See H a r d w i c k , 3 8 - 4 1 for a d e t a i l e d o u d i n e of t h e d e b a t e o v e r a u t h o r s h i p . P G 6.241. 12

13

380

MICHAEL HARDWICK

citing any texts. Pseudo-Justin evinces some familiarity with the Antiquities in that the very title makes his point. W e are confronted with an unsolvable problem: Is the author of the Exhortation familiar with Contra Apionem? The issue is what he means by 'Iou8aiKf]<; 'Ap%aioAoyia<;. T h e proper title of Contra Apionem is Ilepi 'ApxaiOTnxoq 'Iou8aicov with 'IouSa'iicfi, 'Ap%aioXoyia being the title of the Antiquities. Was the author thinking of Contra Apionem as part and parcel of the entire work he simply describes as the "Jewish Antiquities?" After all, Contra Apionem was the sequel to the longer Antiquities and perhaps the apologist is simply treating the two works as a whole or is being imprecise about the title. Certainly Pseudo-Justin's interest in Moses as lawgiver and teacher of religion as well as his comparison to Homer et al. strongly suggests familiarity with Contra Apionem. What we can say is this: As with Theophilus, Pseudo-Justin appropriates Moses without having any need to explain the connection between Judaism and Christianity. Moses is "our" first prophet and lawgiver and it never occurs to him that anyone might gainsay that assertion. H e is apparently aware of Josephus' portrait of Moses that we read in Contra Apionem. 14

Origen Origen (c. 1 8 5 - 2 5 3 CE), although well documented, lived a life of theological controversy due to his many unorthodox opinions. Perhaps as a result of his dubious legacy to many who followed him, much of his estimated 2000 works are extant only in Greek and Latin fragments. Unlike the Christian apologists we have already examined, Origen was not opposed to the subject of philosophy but, instead, both valued and deemed it useful to the Church. Indeed, much of the controversy which surrounded Origen during his life and after his death regarded his application of philosophy to serve his hermeneutic. However, his great apology, Against Celsus, does remain and it is this work that was influenced by Contra Apionem. Origen's Against Celsus (Kaxa KeA,acp) is a response to Celsus' A True 15

16

17

14

P G 6.257. E u s e b i u s in HE. 6 p r o v i d e s a e x t e n d e d b i o g r a p h y of O r i g e n . J e r o m e , Adv. Ruf. 2 . 2 2 . F o r d e t a i l e d discussions o n O r i g e n , t h e A l e x a n d r i a n school a n d t h e i r c o n c e p tion of t h e o l o g i c a l p h i l o s p h y , see R e n é C a d i o u , La Jeunesse d'Origène: Histoire de TEcole 15

1 6

17

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

381

Discourse (Aoyoq dA,r|0f|<;) in which the Church is derided as a secret society which had spun the miraculous tales recorded in the Gospels to explain its separation from Judaism. Celsus uses the figure of a J e w to attack Christianity not because he admires Judaism but to point out that the Church is even more absurd than the religion which spawned it. Thus Origen must first defend Christianity by establishing the credibility of Judaism. Once again, we encounter the argument that antiquity constitutes authority. Celsus, as noted by Feldman, goes so far as to say that antiquity is synonymous with wisdom (1.14). Origen, not unfamiliar with those historians deemed knowledgeable a m o n g the ancients, offers a point by point refutation of Celsus. Twice in the work, Josephus and Contra Apionem appear. In 1.16, mention is made of the two books of On the Antiquity of the Jews (Ilepi 'Apxaiorntoq lou5aicov) which is, of course, Contra Apionem} In 4.11 Origen once again appeals to the two books of the antiquities which are offered as evidence that Moses is more ancient and thus more knowledgeable than many Greeks who offered opinions regarding the prehistory of the earth. Origen does not cite Josephan material, and what he actually knows about Contra Apionem cannot be fully determined. Louis Feldman has identified certain aspects of Origen's argument which would seem to be borrowed from Contra Apionem. Celsus had argued that the Jews were merely rebellious Egyptians rather than a people in their own right (3.6). Origen follows Josephus' thinking that if the Hebrews had been Egyptians, they would not have so readily abandoned their culture (CA 1.317). Origen does go beyond Josephus, who does not state what cultural practices he has in mind, and declares that the Hebrews would not have abandoned the use of the Egyptian language had they been but a horde of seditious Egyp­ tians. The apologist certainly demonstrates his literary competence in this work, and yet one must wonder if he actually had consulted Contra Apionem or simply knew its significance second-hand. In 4.31, we read Celsus' accusation that the Jews have never ac­ complished anything noteworthy and thus do not appear in Greek 18

9

20

d'Alexandrie au debut du IIP Steele (Paris, 1936), 70ff. a n d K a r l - O t t o W e b e r , Origenes der Neuplatoniker: Versuch einer Interpretation ( M ü n c h e n , 1962). Louis F e l d m a n , " O r i g e n ' s Contra Celsum a n d J o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem: T h e Issue of J e w i s h O r i g e n s , " VC 4 4 (1990), 109. As distinguished from t h e Antiquities, lotöaiicri 'ApxaioA.oyia. Ibid, 113. 18

19

20

382

MICHAEL HARDWICK

histories. Feldman notes that Josephus readily admits this fact in CA 1.5 and then devotes considerable attention to explaining it. Josephus' deflects this charge in various ways which include describing the untrustworthiness of Greek writing (CA 1.6-14) and demonstrating that many ancient historians, even more ancient that the Greeks, did indeed know of the Jews (CA 1.161-218). Josephus' also argues that the Jews were kept busy adhering to the cardinal virtues and living out their lives in a state of moral probity (CA 2.145-295). Origen, as noted by Feldman, seizes on this last point in C Cels. 4.31 but adds his own gloss that contact with the Gentiles would have corrupted the Jews and so they lived in righteous seclusion. Most significant to Feldman is Josephus' assertion that Plato was influenced by the Bible (CA 2.257). Origen picks up this theme and postulates that Plato became acquainted with Jewish philosophy in Egypt (C Cels. 4.39). Origen continues this theme by suggesting that Plato's idea that human souls pass to and from earth through the planets (Phaedrus 2 4 8 C - E and Timaeus 4 1 D - 4 2 E ) is derived from Jacob's dream of the ladder extending to heaven (Gen. 2 8 . 1 2 - 1 3 ) . Feldman's analysis does indicate the subtle and sophisticated influ­ ence of Contra Apionem upon Origen. Origen's debt to Josephus is due less to reiteration than to weaving strands of Contra Apionem with the fibers of his own thoughts. W e now turn to the West for its first significant witness to the importance of Contra Apionem for Christian apologetics: Tertullian. 21

22

Tertullian Tertullian (c. 1 4 5 - 2 2 0 CE), born in Carthage, worked as a lawyer in R o m e . His Apology, written sometime around 200 CE, demonstrates his not inconsiderable knowledge of R o m a n literature, custom and jurisprudence. T h e Apology was addressed to the R o m a n senate to plead for tol­ erance toward the Church. Unlike the other apologies we have ex­ amined, this work is clearly intended for a non-Christian readership. 23

24

21

Ibid., 116. Ibid., 117. E u s e b i u s , H.E. 2.2.4 a n d J e r o m e , Vir. III. 5 3 . T h e d a t i n g of t h e Apology is p r o b l e m a t i c . F o r a c o m p r e h e n s i v e discussion, see A. H a r n a c k , Die griechische Übersetzung des Apologet. Tert.'s. T U 8 (Leipzig, 1892), 4.4. 22

2 3

2 4

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

383

Tertullian argues that Christianity is the target of calumnies and that Christians are made to suffer on account of false deities w h o m the Romans themselves reject. In chapter 21 of the Apology, Tertullian directly addresses the historical relationship between Church and Synagogue. That Jesus was rejected by his own co-religionists and that the revelation of G o d through Christ thus came to the Gentiles is actually explained to a non-Christian audience. While Tertullian is clear about the Church's nagative relationship with its mother religion, the apologist still grounds the veracity of Christian teaching on the authority of the parent due to its antiq­ uity. As we have already seen with our other apologists, the superior antiquity of the biblical tradition is contrasted with the relative nov­ elty of Greek literature. Tertullian deems Josephus a key witness to the superior antiquity of the Jewish people for, after all, not only was he a recognized authority but he was himself Jewish. It is Josephus who either confirms or refutes what the ancients say regarding Jew­ ish tradition. Rather than slavishly reproducing the Josephan text, Tertullian relies upon it while fashioning his own narrative. Tertullian does not actu­ ally cite Contra Apionem. In chapter 10 of the Apology he freely borrows from Josephus' work: Moses can be traced back to the time of the Argive king Inachus, and he antedated Danaus, an ancient king of Argos, by almost 400 years. Josephus (CA 1.103 and 2.16) notes that Moses left Egypt 393 years before Danaus went to Argos. Tertullian mentions that Moses antedated the death of Priam by 1000 years, while Josephus states only that Moses preceded the Trojan war by almost a millennium (CA 1.104). As in Contra Apionem, Tertullian notes that the histories of Egypt, the Chaldeans, and the Phoenicians tes­ tify to the antiquity of the Jews (cf. CA 2.1). Tertullian does possibly err in reading Contra Apionem. In chapter 19, Tertullian mentions Thallus as one of those ancients having written on the history of the Jews and asserts that it is Josephus w h o has the last word on their reliability. Thallus actually does not appear in Contra Apionem; how­ ever, Thales does (9dA,Tyca in CA 1.14). It is not known if Thallus, who wrote a history covering the period from the fall of Troy down to the Olympic Year 167 (112-109 BCE), even wrote anything about 25

26

2 5

P L 1.445: " q u i istos a u t p r o b a t a u t revincit, J u d a e u s J o s e p h u s J u d a i c a r u m vernaculus vindex." FrGH 2 . B : 1 1 5 6 - 1 1 5 8 . 26

antiquitatum

384

MICHAEL HARDWICK

the Jews. Further, Tertullian mentions two writers who actually never appear in Contra Apionem: Ptolemy of Mendes and K i n g j u b a . Ptolemy is known through a citation in Tatian (Ad Graec. 38) in which Ptolemy dates Moses as a contemporary of Inachus, king of Argos. Tertullian does refer to Inachus in chapter 19 and this might explain his pres­ ence in his list of historians. Juba was a prolific author but we do not know if he ever wrote anything about the Jews. Perhaps he did and this could account for his inclusion in Tertullian's list. What is most interesting about Tertullian's use of Contra Apionem is that he did not appropriate the Jewish apology without explanation. Tertullian acknowledges the debt to Judaism while maintaining the difference between the two faiths. 27

Eusebius Eusebius (c. 2 6 5 - 3 4 0 CE) represents a watershed in Christian his­ tory in general and is of particular significance for our study of Contra Apionem and apologetics. His attempt to establish a compromise be­ tween Arians and Athanasians did not endear him to many of his contemporaries. Indeed, his subordinationist understanding of the Trinity caused him to be reviled and even excommunicated by or­ thodox Christianity at the synod of Antioch (325 CE). However, this bishop of Caesarea is perhaps the singularly most important historian of the Church and certainly the most significant Christian thinker for understanding the "triumph" of the Church in the fourth century. If Eusebius was a genius, he was less a creative genius than a synthetic one. Eusebius' contribution to Church history and theology was to synthesize various theological strains and explain how the Church evolved from a small, insignificant sect into the religion of the R o m a n world. It is ironic that Eusebius should have been so rejected by his "orthodox" brethren, for what he accomplished was to define orthodoxy for future generations. His bifurcation of early Church history into the orthodox majority versus the heretical few is 28

27

FGrH 4 . 4 8 5 . F o r w h a t is still p e r h a p s t h e best overall i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o t h e life a n d c a r e e r of Eusebius, see t h e article b y Bishop J . B. Lightfoot in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrine, e d s . W . S m i t h a n d H . W a c e ( L o n d o n , 1880), 2 . 3 0 8 - 3 4 8 . Also see A . H a r n a c k , Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1893), 1.551-586. 2 8

385

CONTRA APIONFM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

probably a revisionist account from the vantage of the victors. T h e early Church was no doubt much more pluralistic than Eusebius would have us believe. This aspect of the Eusebian legacy is of importance to our pur­ pose. However controversial some of his views were in his day, the bishop offers a well regarded self-definition of the Church in the fourth century. Apologetics for Eusebius is to explain how the Church arrived at that moment on the Malvern bridge where the emperor himself declares for Christianity. This is Eusebius' great gift to the Church and part of this self-definition is to understand the relation­ ship of the Church with its mother religion. T o that end, looking at Eusebius' interest injosephus and Contra Apionem will prove instructive. Eusebius does tend to cite rather than paraphrase the Josephan text. However, the collection of texts utilized by Eusebius is eclectic and defies attempts to arrive at simple conclusion as to what the Josephan material available to the bishop actually looked like. Gelzer made a quite radical suggestion that the Josephan material is all second-hand from Julius Africanus. Gelzer's thesis does indicate the uncertainty surrounding text critical issues. However, the relation­ ship between the Josephan material cited in the works of Eusebius and Africanus might suggest a c o m m o n or similar Josephan text rather than Eusebius' dependence upon the work of Julius Africanus. Textual questions notwithstanding, the burden of proof is upon those who would suggest that Eusebius is not citing the Josephan material directly from the source. It is more reasonable to assume that Eusebius made direct use of Contra Apionem for the following reasons: Josephus is too important a witness to Eusebius to rely on a second-hand source such as Julius Africanus. Second, there is no reason that the original material would not have been available to the bishop. In several places in the Praeparatio Evangelica, Eusebius makes it clear that the words of Josephus that are cited are direct from the source: 29

30

2 9

For a text-critical analysis of J o s e p h a n excerpts in Eusebius, see E d u a r d S c h w a r t z , ed., Eusebius Werke, ^weiter Band. Die Kirchengeschichte. G C S 9.3 (Leipzig, 1909), cliiiclxxxvii. Also see H e i n z S c h r e c k e n b e r g , Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mitteralter (Leiden, 1972), 8 5 . H e i n r i c h G e l z e r , Sextus Julius Africanus und die Byzantische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1885), 1 : 2 4 7 - 2 5 5 ; 2 : 3 1 - 3 7 , 4 6 - 5 7 , 63f. 3 0

386

MICHAEL HARDWICK

So says Josephus. And anyone who is pleased to read his statements concerning the antiquities of the Jews will find many testimonies in agreement with those I have set forth. (RE. 9.42.4 [554,6~8]) Here, therefore, what he [Josephus] writes, word for word. (RE. 10.6.15 [578,6-7]) But since the question before us was studied carefully long before our writers by the Hebrews themselves, I shall use the language of Flavius Josephus as representative of them all. (RE. 10.12.31 [606,12-15]) 31

32

33

Josephus' treatment of Moses and the Jewish Law in Contra Apionem is the subject of great attention in the Praeparatio Evangelica. (EuayYeAxicfi 7ipo7iapaaK8uf|). Josephus' purpose in Contra Apionem, to demonstrate the virtue of Judaism in the face of pagan claims to the contrary, parallels that of the Praeparatio. Eusebius' goal for the Praeparatio Evangelica is to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity's parent over its pagan rivals. Before we examine particulars, we should take a brief look at the structure and content of the Praeparatio Evangelica. T h e Praeparatio consists of fifteen books divided into five sections: 34

35

Books 1-3 4-6 7-9

10-12 13-15

T h e original fables regarding the deities are ridiculed by later Greek philosophers and poets. T h e opinions of philosophers on fate and free will are considered and their fallacies exposed. T h e Hebrews based their opinions on the excellence of their sacred writings and accuracy of their recorded history. T h e Greeks borrowed from Hebrew theology. Plato is treated as dependent upon Moses. Moses is compared with Plato and opinions of various Greek philosophers are held up to criticism.

T h e Praeparatio Evangelica is less an original work by Eusebius than an anthology of learned opinions. Eusebius outlines the framework and then allows voices both ancient and authoritative to develop his the31

T a m a Kai 6 IoooTirccx;. oxcp 8e (j>iA,ov xoiq rcepi xr\q IovSaicov dpxaioxnxoq XOYOK; evxuxeiv TOX> avdpoq, rcteiaxaq dv evpoi avu^covoix; xalq £KX£0eicai<; naprupiaq. aicove xoivvv o l a Kai omoq ypd(J)£i npoq Xtfyv dXX enei npb T
33

3 4

3 5

CONTRA APIONEM

AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

387

sis. This is the key to understanding Eusebius' approach. It would be an error to examine the passages in minute detail. Eusebius is not so much concerned with the trees as with the forest as a whole. With respect to Josephus, it is necessary to Eusebius purposes that Josephus be allowed to demonstrate the merits of Judaism and the Law. T h e christological issues which qualify his position vis a vis Judaism in general and the Law in particular take a back seat to demonstrating the authority and virtue of Christianity's parent faith. 5

However, in the sequel to the Praeparatio

Evangelica,

the

Demonstratio

Evangelica, Eusebius will distance the Church from both Judaism and the Law. This approach is not so much self-serving as it is pragmatic and evolutionary. It is pragmatic in that if the Church's origins are suspect, Christianity's message has no authority. Thus it is necessary to defend Judaism. Josephus' testimony is both powerful and authoritive precisely because he is Jewish. W h o better than a widely respected Jewish historian could explain his people and the Law? Eusebius' approach is evolutionary in that, for him, what Josephus says about the Law is true as far as it goes. Were it not for Christ, the Law would still be God's last word and there would be no Gospel to supersede it. With one interesting exception, an omission of no great theological significance which will be addressed in due course, Eusebius need only allow Josephus to defend his religion and thus defend the Church. The logic of the Praeparatio is as follows: T h e religious opinions of the Greeks do not go back to the beginning of time and therefore cannot claim the authority of antiquity. T h e Jews, however, combine both antiquity and virtue in their laws and customs. O n e cannot allow for the virtue and harmony of Jewish law and life while reject­ ing Jewish rites and culture or, put another way, it is not reasonable to vilify the Jews for their way of life and religious observances while recognizing the virtue of their laws. It should be noted that Eusebius is not making a case for Judaism in the Praeparatio but for Christian­ ity. As Christianity has succeeded Judaism in the divine plan for world redemption in Eusebius' world view, Christianity has inherited all the virtues of its mother religion. Therefore, an assumption of the Praeparatio Evangelica is that, if Judaism can be seen as superior to the paganism of its day, Christianity is likewise preferable given its

GifFord, e d . , Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri XV ( O x f o r d , 1903), 3 . 1 : v XXX.

388

MICHAEL HARDWICK

ascendency over Judaism. This particular tenet is worked out in the Demonstratio Evangelica. As in Contra Apionem, Moses is the key to demonstrating the excel­ lence of Jewish law. Eusebius cites CA 2 . 1 6 3 - 1 6 7 {RE. 8 . 8 . 1 - 4 [433, 1 6 - 4 3 4 , 9]) which puts the question "who was the most successful lawmaker and who attained the most accurate belief concerning God" in order to answer it: Moses. Moses owed his success to the one G o d from w h o m all things were derived. Rather than put confidence in an imperfect monarchy or oligarchy, Moses created a theocracy whereby all laws have their source in the ineffable and immutable creator of all things. Eusebius continues citing Contra Apionem (2.168-171 in P.E. 8 . 8 . 5 - 9 [434, 9-26]). T h e Greeks themselves are not ignorant of the content of Moses' legislation for Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Plato and the Stoics arrived at similar views of God. However, the failure of Greek phi­ losophy and the success of Moses is evident in that the philosophy of the Greeks is comprehended only by the few whereas Moses' legis­ lation is for all. Further, the laws left nothing to chance but ordered relationships between people as it established piety toward God. Moses' skill as a lawgiver was matched by his sagacity in combin­ ing moral principles with education in living out the precepts of the Law (CA 2 . 1 7 1 - 1 7 8 in P.E. 8 . 8 . 9 - 1 3 [434, 2 4 - 4 3 5 , 25]). For Moses, ignorance of the Law was unacceptable and therefore the Law be­ came the central element in education. This stands in contrast to the Greek neglect of legal education where ignorance is the rule. T h e result of the Mosaic system clearly demonstrates its superior­ ity. T h e harmony and piety which exist in the Jewish community point to the perfection of the system which Moses created (CA 2 . 1 7 9 189 in P.E. 8 . 8 . 1 4 - 2 3 [435, 2 5 - 4 3 7 , 13]). Although the Jews have been criticized for a lack of inventiveness, the drive to create the new is derived from the imperfection of the contemporary. As Moses laid down a perfect code, the Jews seek only to maintain what is flawless and thus desire nothing novel. Eusebius' portrait of Moses or, rather, that created by Josephus which he borrows, is one of a wise man who legislates rather than the biblical image of the prophet w h o receives the Law by means of divine revelation. T h e Law has become the object of study in the 36

36

RE. 8.8.1 ( 4 3 3 , 16-17) citing CA 2 . 1 6 3 : T u ; 8' iiv ö \iäXiaxa KaxopOcoaac; xouq vopovq Kai xfjq 8iKaioxdxr|<;rcepixov Qeov niaxeox; emruxcov . . .

389

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

academy with the aim to live a life of virtue, a goal which the Hellenist would understand and to which he would grant approbation: "For us, on the other hand, the only practical wisdom, the only virtue, is not to refrain from doing or thinking anything not laid down in the laws from the beginning" (CA 2.183 in RE. 8.8.17 [436, 1 6 - 1 8 ] ) . At this point, there is an interesting omission in Eusebius narrative. CA 2 . 1 9 0 - 1 9 2 is conspicuous by its absence when surrounding material from 2 . 1 6 3 - 2 2 8 can be found. In the omitted verses from Contra Apionem Josephus outlines the Jewish conception of God. Although there is nothing about the beginning of this section to give Eusebius pause, Josephus launches into an explanation of why the Jews will not depict God in any form. This prohibition against making graven images of the diety would have struck both pagans and Christians, with their own artistic forms, as odd. Eusebius deems this small section as not helpful and so omits it. The fountainhead of the Mosaic code is the Creator of all things, the ineffable God who is worshipped by the "practice of virtue." This one God is served at one Temple whose sacrifices are models of propriety, unlike those of the Greeks, and prayers are offered for the good of the community, for the Jews are socially aware (CA 2.193— 198 in RE. 8.8.24-32 [437, 1 3 - 4 3 8 , 18]). Temple and cultus are followed by marriage laws (CA 2 . 1 9 9 - 2 0 3 in RE. 8.8.32-36 [438, 1 8 - 4 3 9 , 15]). Eusebius cites Josephus' narration that sexual relations serve only for procreation, and sodomy stands as a capital offense. Courtship is described as is the submission of women to their husbands. Eusebius includes Josephus' confusing discussion of how birth and death require purifying ablutions, for on both occasions a soul is leaving the body. In the former, the soul of the child leaves the w o m b of the mother and, in the latter, the soul is severed from the body by death. This discussion leads to the rearing of children. CA 2.204, cited in RE. 8.8.37 (439, 15-20), notes that the birth of children is an occasion for sobriety and their education consists of training in the Law 37

5

38

39

3 7

fpeiq 8 e xovvavxiov |iiav e l v a i Kai (j)pövr|aiv Kai dpexfjv \meiÄ,f|(J>an.£v, xö \n\8ev öXw; imevavxiov \riyie Ttpä^at |ir|xe 8iavori6fivai xoiq e£ dpxf|<; vo^o0exri6eiaiv. 0£pa7iei>eiv a w ö v dmcowcaq dpexriv (CA 2 . 1 9 2 in P.E. 8.8.27 [ 4 3 8 , 1]). H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y (Josephus. The life. Contra Apionem, L C L [ C a m b r i d g e , M A a n d L o n d o n , 1926]) t h o u g h t t h e final w o r d s of CA 2 . 1 9 8 , ä naKpöv dv eir| yp&tyeiv. XOIOWOQ nev ö Ttepi öeov Kai xn<; eKeivov öepaTteiag Xoyoq fpiv eaxiv, ö 8' avxöq äjxa Kai VÖ^OQ, w e r e possibly a n i n t e r p o l a t i o n , o w i n g to t h e i r a b s e n c e from t h e m a j o r E u s e b i a n m s s . 3 8

3 9

390

MICHAEL HARDWICK

and the history of their people. Josephus could have merely said that Jewish Scripture formed the basis of children's education, but part of his argument for Jewish cultural superiority is that Jews are more knowledgeable of their laws than the Greeks and therefore observe them more closely. As birth, the first major event for the soul, led to a discussion of child rearing, the severing of the soul from the body at death leads to a discussion of Jewish funeral customs (CA 2.205 in RE. 8.8.38 [439, 2 0 - 4 4 0 , 3]). Jewish funerals are characterized by their mod­ esty. T h e y are carried out by the relatives of the deceased, but the community is involved. Finally the home and the immediate rela­ tives of the deceased must be purified. Honor due to one's parents and other social relationships are the subjects of CA 2 . 2 0 6 - 2 0 8 and RE. 8 . 8 . 3 9 - 4 2 (440, 3-12). Next to God, the parents are to be honored by the son lest he be stoned. T h e young generally are to respect elders, and friends are not to keep secrets from each other. For a judge to accept bribes is a capi­ tal offence. Theft, which includes usury, is singled out as a reprehen­ sible crime. T h e preceding passages from Contra Apionem cited in the Praeparatio Evangelica serve less to explain Jewish law to Gentile readers than to convince them that Judaism is a philosophy characterized by har­ mony, reason and moderation, which leads to a life of virtue. Eusebius continues citing Josephus (CA 2 . 2 0 9 - 2 1 4 in RE. 8.8.43-48 [440, 1 2 4 4 1 , 11]) to show that, although foreigners are not admitted into the Jews' most intimate affairs, the Law enjoins proper behavior extended additionally to others outside their religious family. T h e Law re­ quires that the Jews share the necessities of life with those in need, and even enemies are accorded compassionate treatment. Jews must provide refuge to those w h o seek it, and even beasts of labor are treated with kindness. T h e mercy of the Law is enforced and, as knowledge of the Mosaic code is part and parcel of the educational system, there can be no excuse for ignorance. Eusebius cites Josephus' description of the severity of Jewish law (CA 2 . 2 1 5 - 2 1 7 in RE. 8 . 8 . 4 8 - 4 9 [441, 11-18]): Death is the usual penalty for transgressing, or intending to transgress, the most serious aspects of the Law. Even slaves are not exempt and the punishments 40

4 0

If t h e exclusion of foreigners f r o m t h e m o r e i n t i m a t e aspects of J e w i s h life w a s i n t e n d e d b y J o s e p h u s t o i m p l y t h e exclusion of G e n t i l e s from t h e Passover, o n e

CONTRA APIONEM

AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

391

for crimes such as fraud and theft are much more severe than in other legal systems. However, for those w h o observe the Law and who even die as a witness to it, G o d has promised a reward in a better life after death (CA 2 . 2 1 7 - 2 1 9 in RE. 8.8.50-51 [441, 1 8 442, 5]). As stated above, the point of Josephus , and therefore Eusebius', discussion of the Law was not to make the Mosaic legislation com­ prehensible but to affirm that one could not vilify what contributed to a life of virtue (dpexri). T h e adumbration of the Law in Contra Apionem and the Praeparatio Evangelica points to qualities of harmoni­ ous relations in the Jewish community, simplicity of lifestyle, disci­ pline and sobriety. Eusebius continues citing from Contra Apionem where Josephus addresses the differences between the Greek and Jewish legal systems and the Greeks' dim view of the Jewish law (CA 2 . 2 2 0 - 2 2 8 in RE. 8.8.51-55 [442, 5 - 4 4 3 , 9]): T h e first difference between the two systems is that the Jewish system suggests an ideal government which would be considered fanciful except that it is known actually to exist. Jewish laws are far more stringent than Greek ones. Plato, for example, is much admired as a legal philosopher and yet his laws are more lenient than those of the Jews. Further, Plato hesitated to tell the masses about God, in contrast to the Jews w h o make their theocratic system incumbent equally upon all. T h e second difference between the Greek and Jewish legal systems lies in the Jews' faithful adherence over the centuries to the Mosaic code in contrast to the Greeks' less faithful adherence to their code. Although the Spartans and Lacedaemonians are praised for their virtuous adherence to their laws, none has been more virtuous than the Jews for as long despite the numerous disasters which befell the Jewish people. With the end of RE. 8, Eusebius concludes his vast citation from Contra Apionem 2. Before turning in chapter nine to the evidence of Aristeas, the bishop states: 5

These are the statements of Josephus about the Jewish constitution ac­ cording to Moses. But with regard to the allegorical meaning shad­ owed out in the laws enacted by him, although I might say a great deal, I think it sufficient to mention the narratives of Eleazar and Aristobulus, of Hebrew ancestry, who distinguished themselves in the time of the Ptolemies. (RE. 8.8.56 [443,10-14] 41

w o n d e r s w h a t this p a s s a g e m e a n t t o E u s e b i u s . Like t h e J e w s , C h r i s t i a n s e x c l u d e d p a g a n s from t h e i r s a c r a m e n t a l rites. Tavxa n&v Kai 6 'Icocrn7ioq rcepi xf\<; icaxd xf\<; Mcoaea TovSaicov noXixeiaq. nepi 8e xf\<; 4 1

392

MICHAEL HARDWICK

Although Eusebius does not actually say so, the bishop does betray a concern about what he has just cited for his readers. As a Christian w h o deems himself freed from the yoke of that Law which Josephus defends, Eusebius is left with the question of what is the function of the Law for the Christian. Trained in the Alexandrian School which advanced an allegorical hermeneutic, an allegorical interpretation of the Law solves a significant question for Eusebius: It explains the continuing significance of the Law now irrelevant to a gentile Church. Although Eusebius will refrain from explaining his views on the Law until the Demonstratio Evangelica, he cannot contain this comment on the Josephan material. If Jewish virtue is based in part on the nature of the Law and the Jews' faithfulness in its observance, Eusebius, using Contra Apionem, also considers the antiquity of the Jews and the care exercised to preserve the record of their history {CA 1.6-14 in RE. 10.7.1-10 [578, 9 - 5 7 9 , 20]). Greek historical method is marred by the relative modernity of their culture, laws and historiographic accomplishments. Calamities have occurred which induced forgetfulness of the past such that each successive civilization has assumed it was the first. Compounded with this is the lateness of their acquisition of the alphabet which delayed historical writing. H o m e r is recognized as the earliest Greek poet and yet even he did not commit his works to writing. Numerous errors therefore crept into his epics. Greek historians wrote much later than the events which were the objects of their studies, and the most ancient of Greek writings are thus subject to skepticism. Further, the Greeks can make no claim to any special knowledge of antiquity, for their historians cannot come to a consensus on any historical account (CA 1.15-16 in RE. 10.7.11-14 [579, 2 0 - 5 8 0 , 15]). T h e Ecclesiastical History 3.10.1-5 (222, 2 2 - 2 2 4 , 15), citing CA 1.3842, points out that, since the Jews have only twenty-two books of sacred origin which are in harmony and have been transmitted carefully over the years by the Jewish community, this has resulted in greater diligence in maintaining their accuracy. T h e Greeks, on the other hand, have many historical works which reflect mere personal opinion and therefore less care has been observed in their transmission. Discrepancies among Greek historians can be explained in part

ev TOIC; i)n amov xeGeiai vo^oic; eneaKiaa^evriq Kai dMjyyopiKfjt; Oeamiaq noXXä £%CÖV eircev ercapKeiv fr/ovM-ai xa<; 'EXea^dpov Kai Apioxoßo\)^o\) SiTrfrjo&iq, ävöpwv TO jaev yevoq 'Eßpaicov dveKaOev, xöv de xpövov Kaxd xovq ITrote^aicov xpovoix; oiarcpEcjjdvTcov.

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

393

by the absence of public records (CA 1.19-21 in RE. 10.7.15-17 [580, 1 5 - 5 8 1 , 3]). Even the Athenians were not given to maintain an account of their history, and the Arcadians were so late in learn­ ing to write that their claim to antiquity is not worthy of mention (CA 1.22 in RE. 10.7.18 [581, 3 - 4 ] . If Greeks came to keep records many years after the events re­ counted by the historians, Greek historical writing also suffered from too great a concern for style at the expense of accuracy (CA 1.23-26 in RE. 10.7.19-21 [581, 5-17]). Josephus and thus Eusebius grant that the Greeks are the most able and eloquent of writers but leave much to be desired in terms of reliability. We have already noted that the Praeparatio is an anthology of learned opinions around a framework devised by Eusebius. In Contra Apionem, Josephus also makes use of the writings of the ancients to verify the antiquity of the Jews and the veracity of Jewish Scripture. Eusebius, though well read in the literature of antiquity, relies on Contra Apionem as a source book for his own purposes. Eusebius cites Hecataeus of Abdera, who wrote regarding the di­ mensions of Jerusalem and the Temple, along with the story of Mosollamus the archer who served in the army of Alexander the Great (CA 1.197-204 in RE. 9 . 4 . 2 - 9 [490, 1-491, 12]). T h e passage from Hecataeus points to the magnificence of the Jewish capital and the Temple as well as the shrewdness of the Jewish archer w h o demonstrated the absurdity of looking to nature for signs and portents. Clearchus, a peripatetic and student of Aristotle, wrote a book en­ titled On Sleep (Ilepi vnov) in which a statement regarding the origins of the Jews is attributed to Aristotle (CA 1.176-179 in RE. 9 . 5 . 1 - 1 2 [491, 1 3 - 4 9 2 , 5]). T h e Jews are said to be descended from Indian philosophers which points to great antiquity and a long philosophical tradition. Thus we find a philosophical notable attesting to Josephus' and Eusebius' claim and thus making their case for them. Eusebius cites a passage from the poet Choerilus who, when writ­ ing of Xerxes' expedition against Greece, mentions that among his troops were those who lived "in the Solymian hills by a broad lake" (RE. 9.9.1-2 [494, 1 9 - 4 9 5 , 10]). T h e bishop's comments on the passage bear considerable verbal similarity to Josephus' own remarks which identify the Solymian hills as Jerusalem and the broad lake as the Dead Sea (CA 1.172-174). 42

4 2

év IOAA)|IOIÇ öpeai nXaxÉT) rcapà Xi\ivr\.

394

MICHAEL HARD WICK

Eusebius concludes his treatment of Greek witnesses to Jewish antiquity by citing the conclusion to his consideration of the similar section in Contra Apionem (CA 1.215-218 in RE. 9.42.1-3 [553, 1 1 554, 6]). Eusebius, drawing from Contra Apionem, lists Greek authors not included in his text who misrepresented the facts but nevertheless attested to the Jews' antiquity. Berossus' account of Nebuchadnezzar's capture of various nations, including the Jews, is cited as Josephan without attribution to Berossus (CA 1.136-137 in RE. 9.40.1-2 [549, ^ l l ] ) . Eusebius seems to have missed Josephus' note that he was citing Berossus (CA 1.133). Eusebius again cites from Contra Apionem without noting that the material originates with Berossus (CA 1.146-153 in RE. 9.40.3-11 [549, 1 3 - 5 5 0 , 22]). This passage traces Babylonian rule from the death of Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus during whose reign the Temple was rebuilt. T h e only sign in the Praeparatio that Eusebius is aware of Josephus' transmission of Chaldean material is his comment that Josephus appends to his treatment of Phoenician historians testimonies for the antiquity of the Jews from the histories of the Chaldeans (RE. 10.13.13 [609, 5 - 7 ] ; cf. CA 1.128). Josephan material drawn from Berossus is also used in the Armenian Chronicle (21.1-23.29; 2 4 . 2 9 - 2 5 . 5 ; cf. CA 1.128-134). Unlike the Praeparatio, attribution is made here to Berossus, and this material on the life of Nebuchadnezzar is included in a rather longer account than is to be found in Contra Apionem. Eusebius' fascination with Nebuchadnezzar comes from his role in Daniel (Chron. [arm.] 20.24ff.). Berossus' material thus serves as a gloss on the biblical account. Eusebius also cites portions of Josephus' narrative drawn from Manetho the Egyptian (CA 1.73-75, 8 2 - 9 0 , 103-105 in RE. 1 0 . 1 3 . 1 4 3

44

4 3

It is e v i d e n t t h a t E u s e b i u s utilized CA r a t h e r t h a n its parallel in Ant. 1 0 . 2 2 1 2 2 2 given t h e n u m e r o u s differences b e t w e e n t h e t w o J o s e p h a n texts. T h e Chronicle, XpoviKoi Kavov£<; e7cixop.fi 7cavxo8ajcäq Laxopicu;, is c o m p r i s e d of t w o p a r t s . T h e first p a r t consists of s h o r t histories of t h e v a r i o u s n a t i o n s : t h e C h a l d e a n s , t h e H e b r e w s , t h e E g y p t i a n s , t h e G r e e k s (including t h e M a c e d o n i a n s ) a n d t h e R o m a n s . E u s e b i u s i n c l u d e s k i n g lists for e a c h n a t i o n . T h e s e c o n d p a r t of t h e Chronicle is a c h r o n o l o g i c a l t a b u l a t i o n of t h e m a j o r events in history b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e b i r t h of A b r a h a m . T h e first p a r t of t h e Chronicle is e x t a n t o n l y in a s i x t h - c e n t u r y A r m e n i a n t r a n s l a t i o n w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e e n t i r e w o r k while t h e s e c o n d p a r t , also in t h e A r m e n i a n t r a n s l a t i o n , m a y also b e f o u n d in a r a t h e r free L a t i n translation b y J e r o m e w h o c o n t i n u e d E u s e b i u s ' list t o t h e y e a r 3 7 8 C E . T h e s t a n d a r d texts a r e : J . K a r s t , ed., Eusebius Werke. Fünfler Band. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Kommentar, G C S 2 0 (Leipzig, 1911) a n d R . H e l m , Eusebius Werke. Siebenter Band. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi Chronicon, G C S 4 7 (Berlin, 1956). 4 4

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

395

12 [606, 18-608, 25]). T h e antiquity, hence authority, of Manetho is beyond all doubt and his discussion of the Hycsos is of interest re­ garding the identification of the Hebrews. Manetho noted that the Hycsos were a shepherd people who were expelled from Egypt after wresting the government of the land from native Egyptians. Josephus identifies the Hycsos as the Hebrews and Eusebius accepts this Josephan gloss on Manetho without question. The Armenian Chronicle also makes use of the material in Contra Apionem from Manetho (CA 1.73-105; Chron. [arm.] 70.3-74.6). U n ­ like the Praeparatio Evangelica, which is interested only in establishing the identification of the Hycsos as the Hebrews, the Chronicle includes more of the narrative account of Egyptian history, given its less narrowly defined chronographic interests. Josephus' material in Contra Apionem drawn from Phoenician writ­ ers also makes an appearance in the Praeparatio and the Armenian Chronicle. P.E. 10.13.13 (609, 2-5), presents Tyrian evidence that the Temple of Solomon was constructed 143 years and 8 months after the founding of Carthage (CA 1.108 or 126). T h e Armenian Chronicle (25.6-24) makes reference to an unidentified Phoenician document in CA 1 . 1 5 5 - 1 6 0 which establishes that 54 years separated the des­ truction of the Temple and the reign of Cyrus. T h e Temple is also the subject of Chron. (arm) 5 4 . 1 - 5 6 . 1 9 which cites CA 1 . 1 0 6 - 1 2 7 . Josephus cites Tyrian evidence for relations between King Hiram and Solomon at the time of the Temple's construction. Testimony of the Phoenician historians Dius and Menander of Ephesus is cited as additional evidence. Josephus seeks to demonstrate the antiquity of the Jewish nation, for Hiram's accession to the throne occurred 155 years and 8 months before the founding of Carthage (CA 1.126). Further, the construction of the Temple took place only after the Jews consolidated their hold of the land which was many years after their entry into it (CA 1.127). T o Eusebius, this fits in with the pur­ pose of the Chronicle which is to place the story of the Jews in the context of general history and to offer incontrovertible evidence of their antiquity. 45

46

In summary, the Josephan corpus supplied Eusebius with consid­ erable material. W e can find background information which expands

4 5

H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y suggests in his t r a n s l a t i o n of Contra Apionem t h a t t h e p a s ­ sage is from M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s ( p . 2 2 5 , n. e.). Also f o u n d in t h e Selection from Histories, C r a m e r , 2 . 1 8 4 - 1 8 7 . 4 6

396

MICHAEL HARD WICK

upon biblical accounts, historical narrative on persons and events in Jewish history contemporaneous with Jesus as well as geographical and chronological data. However, Josephus' more significant contri­ butions to Eusebius derive primarily from the former's account of the siege of Jerusalem in the Bellum and the defense of Jewish antiq­ uity in Contra Apionem. T h e Praeparatio Evangelica, the first part of Eusebius' grand scheme to demonstrate the antiquity and virtue of Christianity over its pagan rivals, utilizes Josephus' own argument as well as testimony from earlier authors w h o m Eusebius cites through Contra Apionem. Josephus' apology for the greater antiquity of Moses and the superiority of the Jewish law and customs over those of the Greeks finds its way direcdy into Eusebius' argument. Further, ancient witnesses to Jewish antiquity, not all complimentary, are laid out by Josephus and borrowed by Eusebius. Josephus' apology for Judaism becomes Eusebius' apology for Christianity, as the child has inher­ ited the antiquity and the virtue of the parent w h o m it has replaced in God's plan for the redemption of the world.

Christian apologetics and the legacy of Contra Apionem With Eusebius, we come to the end of an era. T h e Church was established first as a protected religion within the R o m a n world and then finally became the religion of state. With the ascent to preemi­ nence, the Church was free to wreak vengeance on those who had sought to do it harm over the centuries. Within a few decades, ex­ cept for a brief abortive resurgence led by the emperor Julian, the old faiths would largely disappear, temples would be destroyed or converted to churches and the R o m a n empire would become the kingdom of Christ ruled by a Christian emperor but superintended by bishops. Before such thinkers as Augustine would recognize that temporal victory for the Church was not necessarily a complete spiri­ tual triumph, much of the old order was lost. T h e Church's thinking was guided by the conviction that the Kingdom of G o d had triumphed over the R o m a n empire: The one G o d and God's only Son had swept away the false deities according to divine plan. T h e sufferings of the Church, the Body of Christ, were see by the apologist as an essential element in that struggle. Part of what Eusebius et al. were about was to explain this event in the light of faith. Their purpose was to chronicle how this miracle

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

397

was really God's intent all along. If G o d had defeated pagan R o m e , then Christian culture had triumphed over Hellenism. However, this defeat of Hellenism was not complete, for over the centuries, the Church itself had become hellenized. If Hellenism was to give way to Christianity, it would live forever within its vanquisher. This should be of no surprise. Christians, like their pagan neigh­ bors, were nourished by their hellenistic culture. T h e world in which the Church suffered, grew and finally prospered left its mark. H o w ­ ever Christians might have shunned the religious and civil practices deemed wicked, they could not escape what had shaped them. Some of the greatest minds in early Christian thought cheerfully embraced the best of Hellenism. Justin Martyr proudly wore his philosopher's gown and was pleased to wield philosophy and rhetoric to advance the Gospel. Others, perhaps less comfortable with their pagan heri­ tage, still had to speak to an unbelieving world in a familiar and comprehensible language. At the time Christianity was still a relatively new phenomenon in the Roman world, Josephus was writing his apology of the Jewish faith, Contra Apionem. He, like other Jewish writers w h o worked in a hellenistic idiom, had to explain his people and their religion in terms comprehensible in and to the prevailing culture. Casting Moses as the great lawgiver and wise man (the latter suggestive of Socrates) reveals Josephus' own mind as much as it tells us about the wise man as a hellenistic trope. W h e n Josephus attempts to prove the superior antiquity of Judaism so as to demonstrate the general supe­ riority of Judaism over Greek culture, this is no mere literary device. We are not seeing an aberrant form of Judaism but what happens to any religion within a larger culture. If this was the case for Judaism, how much more is the case for Christianity which inherited not only a Jewish legacy but a Gentile and hellenistic one as well. Judaism may have been the mother of the Church, but Hellenism was at least an uncle. Christian self-definition was rooted in the idea that the Church was the new Israel, the wild olive branch grafted onto the vine which was the biological Israel (Rom. 11:17). Contra Apionem and its vigor­ ous defense of Judaism would have certainly been welcomed by Chris­ tian apologists who equated an apology of the mother with that of the child. As we have noted, that the connection between synagogue and Church was not explained except for Tertullian and Eusebius is significant. For any apologetic work to assume that the connection

398

MICHAEL HARDWICK

between Israel and the Church required no explanation suggests that it was aimed at a Christian audience rather than at a pagan one. Tertullian was clearly writing to a non-Christian readership and had to explain how Christianity was like and unlike Judaism. Eusebius, committed to telling the entire story of the Church, explained Chris­ tianity's relationship to Judaism in the Demonstratio Evangelica, the sequel to the Praeparatio Evangelica. The second-century bishop Theophilus of Antioch was the first Christian writer clearly to make extensive use of Contra Apionem. Josephus is a major source in Theophilus' To Autolycus which attempted to demonstrate the greater antiquity and concomitant primacy of Christianity over paganism. Theophilus introduces Josephus as having authored an account of the Jewish war. More important to Theophilus, however, is Josephus' dating of the biblical books as antecedent to the Trojan war in Contra Apionem. Theophilus also includes material from Contra Apionem originating with Manetho, as well as a summary of Tyrian evidence on the antiquity of the Temple. There is nothing startling in the argument of To Autolycus. What is noteworthy is the extent to which Theophilus made use of Contra Apionem as early as the second century CE. If Theophilus represents the Christian East, Tertullian is the sole example of a Christian writer in the West before Eusebius, who clearly made use of more than Josephus' name and reputation. Tertullian's use of Contra Apionem indicates that he had accepted Josephus' apol­ ogy as a model useful for the Church against the pagan charge that Christianity was not old enough to claim any authority. The assump­ tion that antiquity conferred authority had already been addressed by Josephus, who argued in Contra Apionem for the antiquity of Moses and the Mosaic code. Josephus sought to establish the greater antiq­ uity, and hence greater authority, of Judaism over Hellenism. Tertul­ lian concluded that if Josephus' argument is valid for Judaism, it was also applicable to Christianity. Tertullian had no interest in dis­ tancing Christianity from Judaism although he does explain how Christianity came to be separated from its parent. T h e theological concept of the Church as the "new Israel" was taken for granted as Josephus was enlisted to defend Christianity. Eusebius presents Moses as a wise man whose genius lay in skillful legislation. In this the bishop departs from the biblical portrait of the lawgiver as the receiver of revelation and places Moses in the acad­ emy and made the Law an object of study whose aim is to promote

CONTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

399

a life of virtue (dpexn). W e have seen the antiquity of Moses de­ fended in order to legitimize Judaism and, by extension, Christianity. The Praeparatio Evangelica goes beyond this in portraying the lawgiver as the ultimate philosopher. Pseudo-Justin does present Moses as a wise man but does not develop the theme to any length comparable to that of Eusebius. Although Eusebius' work, particularly the Praeparatio Evangelica, is synthetic in nature this does not account entirely for the prominence of this theme. This is something we have not seen be­ fore in the extant Christian literature. Moses, according to Eusebius, is the one who created a perfect legal system which works as opposed to that of the Greeks which cannot match the accomplishments of the Mosaic code due to its imperfection. The Law, although strict, is applied equally to all. T h e Law commends to its adherents a life of morality and sobriety, re­ quires that all study its precepts, and encourages harmony. If the philosophical accomplishments of Moses and the harmoni­ ous perfection of the Law go beyond what we have seen to date in the Christian literature we have examined, they should be familiar to us from Contra Apionem. That the purpose of the Law is to pro­ mote virtue is drawn from CA 2.183. Contra Apionem 2 provides Eusebius with all the elements of his argument which appears in the Praeparatio Evangelica. In earlier Christian literature we have seen Contra Apionem used to defend the antiquity of Judaism. Eusebius goes beyond this and utilizes Contra Apionem to defend Judaism's character. Eusebius has introduced a thoroughly hellenized portrait of Moses as preeminent philosopher into Christian literature, and the portrait was that of Josephus. Eusebius went beyond the corollary that antiq­ uity confers authority to depict the character of the legislation. In that the Mosaic code is more likely to engender virtue in the adher­ ents of the Law, it is both superior to as well as older than Greek law and philosophy. This is Josephus' argument in Contra Apionem and, through Eusebius, it has become an argument of Christian apologetics. Although Paul does find that the Jewish Law serves a positive function, Eusebius' assertion is noteworthy given later Chris­ tian diatribes against the Law. Eusebius' portrayal of Moses as wise man parallels that of pseudoJustin's concept of Moses as teacher of religion. In our discussion of the Exhortation, we considered the difficulty of establishing a date for this work. Whether a relationship exists between the Praeparatio Evangelica and the Exhortation (i.e., one read the other or they are

400

MICHAEL HARD WICK

both borrowing from Contra Apionem) is impossible to determine. We can say, however, that in Eusebius we encounter the earliest developed expression of this trope in extant Christian literature. Eusebius follows in established tradition and uses Contra Apionem as evidence for Jewish antiquity and its concomitant authority. However, he also employs Josephus' apology for Judaism in a new way by arguing for the moral superiority of Judaism. This is not to suggest that Christian apologists had not advocated Christianity's morality in the face of immoral paganism or that Christian writers had portrayed Judaism as morally inferior to Christianity. There is nothing novel in Eusebius' assertion that Hellenism had received what truth it possessed from the lawgiver/philosopher Moses, although it is noteworthy that Eusebius draws his entire argument in the Praeparatio Evangelica from Contra Apionem. However, Eusebius does make it clear that the Church had inherited more than Judaism's antiquity and thus authority: Christianity also received from its mother faith a moral tradition superior to that of Hellenism. T h e life of virtue which Josephus describes to be the heart of Judaism becomes a major Eusebian theme. After Eusebius, Contra Apionem lost its fascination for Christian apologists. This is not to say that Josephus ceased to be of interest to writers over the following centuries. Josephus continued to provide exegetical, historical, geographical and chronographical information to generations of thinkers who studied and preserved the Josephan corpus. However, the interest in Contra Apionem waned. The reason for this is the success of the Church vis a vis Hellenism. T h e Church won its contest with classical paganism. With the establishment of Christianity as the R o m a n state religion and the inevitable transformation of hellenistic culture into Christendom, Contra Apionem was no longer needed. There was no one of note left to question the Church's authority. N o t until the rise of Islam would the Church face a determined and powerful competitor. In that contest, Contra Apionem appears to have offered the Church no assistance.

Bibliography e

C a d i o u , R . La Jeunesse d'Origène: Histoire de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie au début du III Siècle. Paris: G . B e a u c h e s n e , 1936. C r a m e r , J . A., e d . Anecdota graeca e codd. manuscriptis bibliothecae regiae Parisiensis. 4 Vols. Oxford, 1839-41.

COMTRA APIONEM AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

401

F e l d m a n , Louis H . Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 3 . . " O r i g e n ' s Contra Celsus a n d j o s e p h u s ' Contra Apionem: The Issue of Jewish Origens. VC 4 4 (1990), 1 0 5 - 1 3 5 . G a g e r , J . G . Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. Nashville: A b i n g d o n , 1972. G e i z e r , H . Sextus Julius AJricanus und die byzantinische Chronographie. 3 Vols. Leipzig: J . C . H i n r i c h s , 1 8 8 5 - 9 8 . R e p r i n t . N . Y . : B u r t F r a n k l i n , 1967. Gifford, E. H . , ed. a n d t r a n s . Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis. 4 Vols. O x ­ ford, 1903. G r a n t , R . M . " N o t e s o n t h e T e x t of T h e o p h i l u s , T o A u t o l y c u s I I I . " VC 12 (1958): 136-144. H a r d w i c k , M . E. Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius. B r o w n J u d a i c Studies n r . 128. A t l a n t a : S c h o l a r s Press, 1989. H a r n a c k , A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. 2 Vols. Leipzig: J . C . H i n r i c h s , 1893. . Die griechische Übersetzung des Apologet. Tert.'s. T U 8:4. Leipzig: J . G. H i n r i c h s , 1892. H e l m , R., ed. Eusebius Werke. Siebenter Band. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Hieronymi Chronicon. G C S 4 7 . Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1956. K a r s t , J . , ed. a n d t r a n s . Eusebius Werke. Fünfter Band. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischen Commentar. G C S 2 0 . Leipzig: J . C . H i n r i c h s , 1 9 1 1 . Lightfoot, J . B. " E u s e b i u s of C a e s a r i a . " I n t h e Dictionary of Christian Biography, Litera­ ture, Sects and Doctrines Being a Continuation of "The Dictionary of the Bible" ed. W . S m i t h a n d H . W a c e , 2 : 3 0 8 - 3 4 8 . L o n d o n : M u r r a y , 1880. M r a s , K., ed. Eusebius Werke. Achter Band. Die Praeparatio Evangelica. G C S 8 . 1 - 8 . 2 . Berlin: A k a d e m i e , 1 9 5 4 - 5 6 . Niese, B., ed. Flavii Iosephi Opera. Edidit et apparatu critico instruxit. 6 Vols. Berlin, 1 8 8 7 1895. O t t o , J . C . T . , e d . Theophili Episcopi Antiocheni. Ad Autolycum. Libri Tres. C o r p u s A p o l o g e t a r u m C h r i s t i a n o r u m 8. J e n a , 1 8 6 1 . S c h r e c k e n b e r g , H . Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter. L e i d e n : Brill, 1972. S c h w a r t z , E., ed. Eusebius Werke, ^weiter Band. Die Kirchengeschichte. G C S 9 . 3 . Leipzig: J . C . H i n r i c h s , 1909. T h a c k e r a y , H . St. J . , ed. a n d t r a n s . Josephus. The Life. Contra Apionem. L C L . L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n a n d C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1926. W a c h o l d e r , B. Z . Eupokmos. A Study of Judeo-Greek Literature. C i n c i n n a t i : H e b r e w U n i o n College Press, 1974. W e b e r , K . - O . Origenes der Neuplatoniker: Versuch einer Interpretation. M ü n c h e n : C . H . Beck, 1962.

Index Contra Apionem 1.93-104 1.106-126 1.117-126 1.128-154

T h e o p h i l u s , To Autolycus 3.21 3.22 3.22 3.25 a n d 3.29

1.317 1.5

O r i g e n , Against Celsus 3.6 4.31

402

MICHAEL HARD WICK

2.145-295 2.257

4.31 4.39

1.103-104 2.1 2.16 1.14

T e r t u l l i a n , Apology c h a p t e r 10 c h a p t e r 10 c h a p t e r 10 c h a p t e r 19

1.163-167 2.168-171 2.171-178 2.179-189 2.193-198 2.199-203 2.204 2.205 2.206-208 2.209-214 2.215-217 2.217-219 2.220-228 1.197-204 1.176-179 1.172-174 1.215-218 1.136-137 1.146-153 1.6-14 1.15-16 1.19-21 1.22 1.23-26 1.128 1.73-75, 8 2 - 9 0 , 103-105 1.108, 126

Eusebius RE. 8 . 8 . 1 - 4 RE. 8 . 8 . 5 - 9 RE. 8 . 8 . 9 - 1 3 RE. 8 . 8 . 1 4 . 2 3 RE. 8 . 8 . 2 4 - 3 2 RE. 8 . 8 . 3 2 - 3 6 RE. 8.8.37 RE. 8.8.38 RE. 8 . 8 . 3 9 - 4 2 RE. 8 . 8 . 4 3 - 4 8 RE. 8 . 8 . 4 8 - 4 9 RE. 8 . 8 . 5 0 - 5 1 RE. 8 . 8 . 5 1 - 5 5 RE. 9 . 4 . 2 - 9 RE. 9 . 5 . 1 - 1 2 RE. 9 . 9 . 1 - 2 RE. 9 . 4 2 . 1 - 3 RE. 9 . 4 0 . 1 - 2 RE. 9 . 4 0 . 3 - 1 1 RE. 1 0 . 7 . 1 - 1 0 RE. 1 0 . 7 . 1 1 - 1 4 RE. 1 0 . 7 . 1 5 - 1 7 RE. 10.7.18 RE. 1 0 . 7 . 1 9 - 2 1 RE. 10.13.13 RE. 1 0 . 1 3 . 1 - 1 2 RE. 10.13.13

1.128-134 1.55-160 1.106-127 1.73-105

Chron. Chron. Chron. Chron.

1.38-42

H.E.

(arm.) (arm.) (arm.) (arm.)

21.1-23.29; 24.29-25.5 25.6-24 54.1-56.19 70.3-74.6

3.10.1-5

ABBREVIATIONS

Ad. Graec. Adv. Iou. Aen.

47

Tatian, Oratio ad Graecos Porphyry, Adversus Ioudaeos Virgil, Aeneid Josephus, Jewish Antiquities American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete

AJP ANRW Ant. APF/Arch. Pap.-Forschung Archiv fur Religionswissenschqfl ARW Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute ASTI Babylonian Talmud, Sopherim b. Sof. Babylonian Talmud, Taanith b. Ta'an Biblical Archaeologist BA Biblical Archaeology Review BAR Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Bell./Bellum Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovanienBETL sium Beiträge zur historischen Theologie BHT Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (— Tediot) BIES Bulletin de l'institut jranyais d'archéologie orientale BIFAO BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Man­ chester Brown Judaic Studies BJS BT Babylonian Talmud Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo Bull. Fac. Arts BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CA/CAp Josephus, Contra Apionem Origen, Contra Celsum C. Cels. Corpus Christianorum CChr CPh CPJ

CQ.

Classical Philology Victor A. Tcherikover, Alexander Fuks, and Menahem Stern, eds., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1957-64) Classical Quarterly

404

CRIJVT

CSCT CSEL De hid. De. Spec. Leg. Encjud EpArist Epist. EPRO ET EvT Expos VI FGH/FGrHist

Place. FRLANT GCS GLAJJ

GRBS H.E. Hist. Hist. Hist. HJP

HTR HUCA

ABBREVIATIONS

Samuel Safrai and M e n a h e m Stern, eds. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institu­ tions, vol. 2 (Compendia Rerum Iudaicaru..i ad Novum Testamentum, Section I: The Jewish People in the First Century, Assen: V a n Gorcum, 1976) Columbia studies in the classical tradition Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Plutarch, De hide et Osiride Philo, De specialibus legibus Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols. (Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1971) Epistle of Aristeas Jerome, Letters Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire Romain English Translation Evangelische Theologie The Expositor, sixth series Felix Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Histo­ riker (Berlin: Weidmann, 1 9 2 3 - and Leiden: Brill, 1954-) Philo, in Flaccum Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und N e u e n Testaments Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller M. Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974—84) Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Herodotus, Historiae Polybius, Historiae Tacitus, Historiae G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman, ed., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ [175 B.C.-A.D. 135]. Rev. English version, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973) Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual

ABBREVIATIONS

HZ

m

IL Int Is. et Os. JAC JAOS JBH

JBL JEA JETS JJC

JJS JMS JQP JR JSJ JSOT JSP JSS JThSt/JTS J.W. KP

Lam. R. LCL LEC Legat. Life/Vit. LSJ m. Kel. m. Ker. m. Men. m. Midd.

4U5

Historische Zeitschrift Israel Exploration Journal Homer, Iliad Interpretation Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride Jahrbüch für Antike und Christentum Journal of the American Oriental Society Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1989) Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1987) Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Jewish Social Studies Journal of Theological Studies Josephus, Bellum Judaicum W. Sontheimer and K. Ziegler, eds., Der kleine Pauly; Lexikon der Antike. Auf der Grund Pauly's Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 5 vols. (Stuttgart: A. Druckenmiller, 1964-75) Lamentations Rabbah Loeb Classical Library Library of early Christianity Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium Josephus, Vita Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek-English Lexicon Mishnah Kelim Mishnah Kerithoth Mishnah Menahoth Mishnah Middoth

406

ABBREVIATIONS c

Mishnah M o e d Qatan Mishnah Pesahim Mishnah Shekalim Mishnah Sotah Mishnah Sukkah Mishnah Ta anith Mishnah T a m i d Mishnah Y o m a Mishnah Zabim Mishnah Sanhédrin 2 Maccabees Antoninus Liberalis, A Collection of Metamorphoses Ovid, Metamorphoses Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Mémoires publiés par les membres de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale Plutarch, Moralia Mor. Mos. Philo, De vita Mosis Nat. Anim. Aelianus, De natura animalium Nederlands theologisch tvjdschrift NedTTs NovT Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies NTS Orbis biblicus et orientalis OBO Odes of Solomon Odes O G I S / O G I Sei Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae OMRO Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden Or Orientalia (Rome) OT Old Testament OTS Oudtestamentische Studien PAAJR Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research P.E. Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel Jacques P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Computus PG Series Graeca. 161 vols. (Paris: Seu Petit-Montrouge, 1857-66) Pindar, Pythian Odes Pind. Pyth. PL Jacques P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Computus Series Latina. 221 vols. (Paris: Migne, 1841-79) Plutarch, Caesar Plut. Caes. Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel Praep. Evang. c

m. M o e d Qat. m. Pesah. m. Sheqal. m. Sot. m. Sukk. m. T a a n m. Tarn. m. Y o m . m. Zabim. m. Sanh. II Mace Met. Met./Metam. MGWJ MIFAO c

c

ABBREVIATIONS

PSI

PW/PWÄ£

lQIs* 1QM 4Q274 4QMMT 4QTohorot HQT Quaest. conviv. RB RE

REA REJ Rep. Rex. Div. Her. RevSém Rhet. RHR RSO SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSCS SCI SFSHJ Sib. Or. SJLA SNTSMS

407

Pubblicazioni della Societa italiana per la Ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto: Papiri greci e latini, ed., G. Vitelli et al. (Florence, 1912) August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus, Konrat Ziegler, eds., Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1st series, 47 vols.; 2d series, 18 vols., 15 suppl. vols. (Stuttgart: Metzler, Druckenmüller, 1893-1978) D e a d Sea Scrolls, lQIsaiah D e a d Sea Scrolls, War Scroll D e a d Sea Scrolls, Purification rules A D e a d Sea Scrolls, Halakhic Letter D e a d Sea Scrolls, Purification rules D e a d Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll Plutarch, Quaestiones convivales Revue Biblique August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Karl Mittelhaus, Konrat Ziegler, eds., Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1st series, 47 vols.; 2d series, 18 vols., 15 suppl. vols. (Stuttgart: Metzler, Druckenmüller, 1893-1978) Revue des études anciennes Revue des études juives Plato, Republic Philo, Quis Rerum Divinarum Hères Revue sémitique Aristotle, Rhetoric Revue de l'historié des religions Rivista degli studi orientali Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Study SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Scripta classica Israelica South Florida studies in the history of Judaism Sibylline Oracles Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Society for N e w Testament Studies Monograph Series a

408

ABBREVIATIONS

SOTSMS SP SPB ST STDJ SUNT TANZ TAPA TSK TU TWKT/ThWKT Vor. hist. VC Vir. III. VT War WMANT WUNT c

y. T a a n ZAW ZMW ZPE

Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Stadia Patristica Studia postbiblica Studia Theologica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des N e u e n Testaments Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeit­ alter Transactions of the American Philological Association Theologische Studien und Kritiken Texte und Untersuchungen G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.) Theologisches Wörter­ buch zum Neuen Testament Aelianus, Varia historia Vigiliae Christianae Jerome, De viris illustribus Vetus Testamentum Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und N e u e n Testament Wissenschaftliche U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m N e u e n Testament Jerusalem Talmud, Ta anith Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphie c

INDEX OF JOSEPHUS

CONTRA

5

WRITINGS

APIONEM

C O N T R A A P I O N E M citations from p a g e s 5 5 - 6 0 (consisting of a list of a n c i e n t sources) a r e n o t i n c l u d e d in this i n d e x of citations b e c a u s e t h e y c a n b e l o c a t e d m o r e easily u n d e r individual a u t h o r s in t h e i n d e x of a n c i e n t n a m e s , e.g. A p i o n . BOOK

1

1 1-105 1-141 1-2 1-5 1-56 3 4 5 6 6-7 6-14 6-14/29 6-22 7 8 8-12 8-14 9 11-12 12 13 14 15 15-16 15-17 16.1-3 18 19 19-21 19-27 20-22 22 23-26 23-27 24 25 26

375

2 9 , 6 0 , 7 7 , 120, 158, 2 0 8 , 209, 350 2 0 , 100 63 3 5 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 104, 1 1 1 , 150 157, 165 2 0 , 100, 104, 105, 107, 111 4 4 , 7 5 , 7 7 , 164, 2 0 9 117, 123, 162, 170 382 8, 117, 170 37, 98 382, 392 104 37 4 5 , 9 8 , 119 165 8 98 121 121 35 121 3 6 , 129, 3 8 3 117,208,229 392 99 317 26, 99 8, 157 393 121 8 28, 393 393 99 99, 241 241 3 1 , 99

28 28-29 28-36 28-43 28-56 29 29-36 30 30-35 30-36 30-46 31 32 32-33 33 35 36 37 37-38 37-38/39 37-40 37-41 37-42 37-43 38 38-41 38-42 39 39-40 40-41 41 42 42-43 42-46 43 44-46 45 45-46 47

7, 2 3 0 , 241 9 9 , 101 99 101 97 4 2 , 102, 147, 164, 1 6 5 , 210 327 101 29 3 4 , 9 9 , 1 0 1 , 102, 104 43 4 1 , 170 77 165 4 1 , 170 41 170 2 0 , 6 6 , 102, 1 0 5 , 110, 165, 2 3 0 99 102 23, 24, 28, 36, 4 3 , 47, 103 2 7 , 2 9 , 3 0 , 1 0 3 , 104 39, 43 2 6 , 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 6 , 4 5 , 101 102, 165 . 3 6 , 3 7 , 3 8 , 101 28, 392 120 9 9 , 102 37 3 1 , 7 0 , 9 9 , 1 0 3 , 110, 170 3 0 , 3 9 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 100 103 104 210 100, 104 170, 2 2 9 104 105

410 47-50/56 47-52 47-56 50 51 52-53 53 53-54 53-56 54 55-56 56 57 58 58-59 58-62 59 60 60-64 60-68 60-218 68 69 69-70 69-74 69-218 70 71 72 72-105 73 73-105

73-205 73-252 73-75 73-90 73-91 73-92 73-94 74 75-76 75-83 75-90 75-92 75-105 76 76-83 78 78-1.86 81

INDEX OF JOSEPHUS' WRITINGS 109 100 2 0 , 9 8 , 1 0 3 , 104, 1 1 1 , 117, 157 5 2 , 170, 3 4 9 50 170 6 6 , 117, 2 4 8 350 100, 3 5 0 2 9 , 7 6 , 105, 108, 150, 165 170 2 5 , 165 210 164 152 165 7 7 , 170 46, 357 210 35 210 357 3 9 , 158 157, 170, 2 4 0 8, 165, 183 36, 351 241, 358 77 170, 2 9 7 28 251, 323 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 4 1 , 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 2 4 1 , 395 28 63 394 34, 47 40, 275 32, 39, 46 27 170, 2 4 0 276 33, 36, 40 14, 3 2 , 3 7 , 4 2 , 134, 3 2 1 , 323 38 121 283 28 275, 276, 279 47 62

82 82-90 83 83-205 86 87-90 88-90 89-90 91 91-3 91-92 92 92-93 93 93-101 93-102 93-105 94-102 94-103 94-105 97 98 101-05 103 103-05 104 104-5 105 105-06 106 106-26 106-27 106-126 108 112 112-15 113-15 113-16 113-125 115 115-16 116-20 116-26 116-27 117-20 117-25 117-26 117-126 118 118-19 119 121 121-25 121-26

39, 276 394 1 8 1 , 183 28 275, 279 322 276 35 70 183 181 361 165 170 37 374 40, 46 32 376 33 42 41 183 66, 70, 383 394 3 7 , 134, 3 7 4 , 3 8 3 170 242 165 7 7 , 181 3 1 , 32, 37, 39 395 374 45, 395 170, 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 , 157, 287 47 351 42 30 287 165, 170, 183 351 28,47 41 41 37 26, 37, 39 376 29 45 38,45 183 37 46

CONTRA APIONEM

126 126-34 127 127-28 128 128-34 128-53 128-54 129 129-53 130 131-53 133 134 134-38 134-41 135 135-41 135-53 136-37 139 142 142-45 143 144 146 146-53 150 154 154-55 155 155-60 156-58 159 160 160-61 161 161-212 161-218 162 162-65 162-68 163-5 163-64 164 164-65 165 166-67 166-82 168 168-74 169 169-70

45, 395 183 3 7 , 150, 187, 3 5 0 , 375, 395 157, 165 66, 123, 375, 394 394 351 375 170 28 7 7 , 351 351 62, 63, 394 157 37 375 29, 33 123 46 394 30 45 183 170 351 70 123, 3 9 4 30 181 165, 170, 183 157 395 30 183 7 7 , 123 157, 165, 170, 181 117 39 46, 123, 382 211 36 183 67 31 35 33, 47 211 28, 33, 44 34 34 40 360 351

171 171-72 172-74 173 173-205 174 174-76 175 175-176 176-79 176-82 176-83 176-182 177-181 178 182 182-86 183 183-20 183-204 183-205 183-214 186 187 187-89 187-204 189 190 191-204 192 192-93 192-96 193 197 197-204 199-216 200 200-04 200-204 201-04 201-204 205 205-08 205-12 209-12 212 213-14 215 215-16 215-18 216 216-17 216-18

411

353 183 26, 38, 393 28, 39 38 165 183 211 8 393 44 2 3 , 34, 36, 42, 47 211 32 2 7 , 77 261 183 3 5 , 157, 164 38 33, 34, 36, 40, 44 28, 29, 30, 40, 42, 44, 4 7 , 130 67 22 30, 35, 38 31 29 26, 32 183 211 4 0 , 170 254 183 37, 42 25 393 24 170, 183 40 25 70 2 3 , 31 165, 170 183 29, 47 253, 351 183 47 124, 170 287 394 125 157, 165 124

412 216-222 217 218 219 219-320 219-2.144 220 220-22 222-224 223 223-232 224 224-26 225 226-27 227 227-50 227-66 227-77 227-87

227-2.32 228 228-29 228-51 228-52 228-87 228-250 228-251 228-287 229 229-50 229-51 230 230-66 230-232 231 232 232-302 233 234 235 236-50 237 237-38 237-50 238 239 242 242-43 243 248-49

INDEX OF JOSEPHUS' WRITINGS

8 6 8 , 7 5 , 7 7 , 125 47 7 7 , 157, 165, 170, 118 211 240 242 211 137 183 356 242 211 242 165, 170 3 9 , 134 38 38 2 3 , 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 4 1 , 44, 46, 47 27 3 1 , 37, 242, 321 275 275 40 43 122 11 2 4 1 , 242 135, 3 5 2 322, 323 34, 47 247 38 16, 2 4 3 40, 42, 253 277 8 3 1 , 277 244 252, 259 43 10, 1 8 3 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 , 2 7 9 , 322 47 42 135, 2 5 2 , 2 5 5 , 2 7 8 255 277, 279 47 279 279

249 250 251 251-53 252 252-53 254 254-55 254-259 254-286 255 256 256-59 257 258-59 258-259 259 260 260-62 260-266 261 262 267 268 269 271-74 271-274 272 273 274 277 278 279 279-80 279-83 279-286 280-85 286 287 287-88 288 288-92 288-292 288-303 289 290 292 293 296 299 300 303

255, 283, 325 3 2 , 135, 2 5 1 , 2 7 9 164 157, 183 162 165 170, 277 243 8 243 247 243, 247, 352 247 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 , 277 247 244 247 165, 2 7 9 47 244 279 279, 277 17, 162, 170, 2 4 4 , 247, 248 244, 247 244, 247 245 16, 2 4 6 247, 248 247 245 246, 247, 248 77, 247 279, 352, 354 165 352 246 247 17, 3 1 , 2 4 7 , 2 7 9 157, 162, 2 4 2 170 157, 1 8 3 , 2 4 0 , 277 25, 33, 4 3 , 44, 47 1 1 , 2 8 0 , 281 24, 25, 28, 32, 34, 39, 4 1 , 42, 44, 47, 277, 283 282 11,280,282 162, 170, 183 47, 279 306 11 157

413

CONTRA APIONEM

304 304-20 305-11 307 309 311 312 316 317 319-2.142 320

6 5 , 183 23, 3 1 , 34, 39, 47 352 30 255, 259 38 9 6 , 183 77 381 63 162

BOOK

23,

1 1-144 1-2 1-9 2 2-144 4 7 8 8-27 8-32 10 10-32 11 12 12-14 14 15 15-17 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 28-32 28-41 29 31 31-32 32 33 33 33-47

2

24,

37,

41,

391,

33-60 33-78 35 35-39 37 39 42 42-43 42-62 43

399

6 0 , 6 8 , 7 5 , 7 7 , 158, 170, 208, 350, 383 49 2 4 , 157 165 118 23, 29, 32, 34, 42, 44, 47 157, 170 170 157, 183 39 34 32, 279 24 33,41,252,268 3 7 , 183 162 3 5 , 3 6 , 120 352 118 30, 383 253 165, 2 9 7 183 33, 42, 260 4 1 , 183 30, 260 137 3 3 , 170 14, 2 5 3 47 36 31 13, 139 165 136 170 2 3 , 4 3 , 183 40

44 45-7 49 51-111 51-113 51-55 51-56 52-113 53 56 58 59 61 61-2 61-71 63 63-64 64 65 68 69-71 72 73 73-4 73-75 76-77 77 78-9 79 79-102 79-111 79-80 79-88 80 80-114 80-88 81 82 84 88 89 89-102 89-111

31 296 43 43 157 8, 2 8 , 3 4 , 37 4 3 , 170 33 8 28, 29, 30, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47 47 70 28 78 43,62,63 36 47 6,9 170 170, 2 6 2 40 157, 165 43 170 32 40 37 47 170, 1 8 3 , 3 5 5 116,268 170 43 262 170 31 327, 347 26 170 3 0 , 3 8 , 157, 165, 183 355 31 12, 3 0 , 4 4 , 2 8 5 39 257, 258, 310, 317 46 25 157, 165 41 351 162 3 0 , 183 44 32,297

414

89-96 90 91 91-96 91-96 97 97-102 102 102-04 102-09 102-104 102-109 103 103-109 104 105 106 106-07 107-08 108 112 112-14 112-114 112-20 112-120 114 115 119 120 121 122 124 125 125-134 126-34 128 129-31 130 131 132 132-34 135 136 137 137-8 138 139 141 142-3 143 144 145 145-214 145-219

INDEX OF JOSEPHUS' V O T I N G S

285 313 336 258, 328 30 183 328 165 329, 347 327 21 21 331 37 329, 333 334, 342 337, 338 335 339 22, 340, 342, 343, 338 38 124, 3 1 0 , 3 1 5 12, 3 1 , 2 8 6 43,47 32 25 165, 162, 183 215, 327, 344, 345, 347 2 5 , 165 358 162 162 262 23 41 295 157 28 30 170 165 350 7 6 , 150, 3 5 0 , 3 5 3 256, 2 6 1 , 359 170 256 211 43, 359 170 157 4 3 , 162, 2 2 2 , 3 5 5 17, 18, 19, 3 0 , 165, 363 50 47

145-286 145-295 145-296 145-47 145-48 145-49 145-50 146 147 148 149-51 150 151 151-286 151-56 152 154 154-55 155 156 156-174 156-57 157 157-98 162 163 163-67 163-228 164-171 164-219 164-65 165 165-66 167-68 168 168-71 169 170 170-78 171 171-78 172 172-183 173 175 178 178-81 179-89 183 183-204 184-189 184-89

19, 2 1 2 , 2 9 6 24, 382 46 157, 165 38 47 39 212 115, 170, 2 9 7 28, 30, 259, 260, 268, 354, 355 157, 165 212 170, 3 5 4 42 126 252 6 7 , 120, 157, 165, 2 1 2 , 354 70 3 5 , 170 6 7 , 119, 157 7 0 , 74 165 70 26 70 212, 388 388 389 212 46 127 2 1 , 23, 24, 35, 37, 42, 45, 50, 54, 362 28 127 2 3 , 2 8 , 3 6 , 7 0 , 157, 3 5 4 388 129 157 46 67 388 70 212 6 7 , 70 27, 30, 36, 46 3 0 , 231 39 388 389, 399 351 14, 2 1 3 137

CONTRA APIONEM

185 185-87 185-88 187 188-89 188-92 189 190 190-191 190-92 190-219 190-9 190-93 192 193 193-94 193-98 194 196 197 199-203 202 203 203-13 204 205 205 206-09 207 207-11 208 209-10 209-14 209-210 210 211 213 213-14 214 215 215-17 216 217 217-18 217-19 219-222 220-28 220-286 221 222-25 224 226 227-287 228-251 228-35

362 327 147 3 0 , 231 45 25 129 28 30 389 26, 27, 36, 47, 213 355 28 28, 47, 389 37, 347 147 26, 5 1 , 327, 389 231 208 32 389 35 36 45 46, 389 36 4 1 , 390 390 3 6 , 41 35 46 36 357, 390 19, 2 1 3 3 9 , 41 36 35, 36, 68, 357 45 357 30, 33 390 35, 46 33 39 4 1 , 391 165 391 214 129 66 28 157, 165 36 280 39

228-90 231 233 233-34 236 237 237-39 237-8 239 242 247 251 254 255 255-278 256 257 257-59 257-61 258 259 261 262 262-278 263 266-67 270 271-73 273 276 276-77 276-78 277-78 279-286 279-80 279-95 282 282-284 282-84 284 285 287 287-296 287-88 287-95 288 288-90 291 291-95 293 295 296 309 318

415

208 157, 2 5 4 37 165 30 28, 32, 33, 356 165 170 2 8 , 154 28 28 28 2 8 , 157 30 214 35 127, 3 8 2 255 357 19, 3 0 , 2 1 4 , 2 5 5 255 4 1 , 165, 2 1 5 3 0 , 157 215 170 45 30 39, 41 170 157 165, 2 1 5 231 39 215 13, 140 30 2 5 , 2 8 , 3 2 , 127 215 129 28 170 7 6 , 150 216 157, 165 350 77 170 157, 165 39 2 8 , 157, 165 3 0 , 4 7 , 129, 162 3 1 , 6 0 , 7 7 , 157, 158, 165 357 357

ANTIQUITIES

BOOK 1 1-26 1-4 4 5 6 8 9-2.29 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22-23 25 33 35 50 82 93 94 100-101 107 117 128-29 130 135 143-154 146 154-168 158-60 166-68 168 192 203 205 209 214 284 286 337-40

18 150 194 4 , 4 4 , 108 76 60 24 79 7 6 , 198, 2 1 4 198, 2 0 8 118, 120, 3 5 0 1 9 8 , 199 199 118 45 76, 354 199 200 199, 2 0 0 , 3 6 0 359 62 62 118 351 124, 2 8 6 40 1 2 1 , 139 62 198 62 62 353 62 200 46, 351 356 62, 354 360 76 62 62 360 62 62 361

BOOK 2 7-200

95

24 37 117 120 199 201-349 205 215 228 231 237 238-253 273 277-80 348

363 62 62 62 62 139 62 62 62, 314 314 62 355 353 361 249

BOOK 3 90-286 91 94 102-150 114 126 143 147 180 205 218 223 224-239 226 230 .240-254 257 259 261 262 276 277 278 317 318

'

352 359 360 355 337 355 360 336 354 360 360 200 355 334 360 355 360 360 332 62 62 62 62, 329 198 354

BOOK 4 62 114 115-116 137 185

45 201 201 356 366

417

ANTIQUITIES

186 196-301 198 200 207 218 223 224 244 251 260 302 324 328 331

363, 364 352 360 62 62, 357 363 363, 366 365, 366 62 62 62 360 363 354 354

BOOK 5 15 20-21 43 55 57 80

363 361 364 364 364 364

BOOK 6 36 38 61 88-94 91 186-87 203

365 365 365 366 365 361 361

BOOK 7 267 364 365 365-68 366

343 343 342 341 343

BOOK 8

201

24 50 50-54 61 62 93 116-17 144 144-46 146

287 62 122 118 45 62 359 62 351 45

147-49 260 262 324

351 62 3 5 1 , 360 122

BOOK 9 284-87

122

BOOK 10 84-180 186-281 190-94 219-26 220 220-26 220-48 221-22 227 227-28 231

95 95 359 351 62 122 46 394 62 351 62

BOOK 11 86 184-296 212 275 276 279 281 337

359 95 358 358 358 359 359 95

BOOK 12 5 5-6 6 225-28 322

62 22 62, 351 254 95

BOOK 13 72 171-73 173 207 257 257-58 298 311-313 318-19 396 397

76 199 76 287 287, 288 201 76 96 201 287 201

418

399-300

INDEX OF JOSEPHUS' WRITINGS

96

81-84 257-59 259

198 53, 54 196 52 338 287 96 1 9 6 , 198 1 1 8 , 150 62 60

BOOK 19

BOOK 14 1-3 2-3 13 68 72 88 172-176 186-87 187 188 219-222 BOOK 15 174-75 371 373-379 391-402

150 360 96 337

BOOK 16 41 44 75 174-78

358 118 1 9 6 , 198 115

BOOK 17 41-45

96

BOOK 18 12-18 23 63-4 81

199 366 51 1 9 1 , 192

201-04 270

202 139 76

198 52

BOOK 2 0 17 34 35 38 38-42 42 43 46 47 48 49 53 66 72 76-9 85 139 145 195 230 258 259 261 262 263 264-66 266 267 268

206 206 207 206 206 206 206 206 206 206, 207 206 207 207 207 207 207 201 201 191 118 76 76 108 198 52, 349 2 0 , 1 0 5 , 107 60, 76 6 1 , 7 6 , 197 361

VITA

1 1-6 12 113 27 336-67 342 358 363 412

198, 3 5 0 2 0 , 77, 107 198 203 76 117 25 25 61 76

413 414 415 422 424 425 427 429 430 430

76 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 60 76

BELLUM JUDAICUM

1.1 1.1-3 1.1-4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9-12 1.13-16 1.18 1.18 1.19-20 1.31 1.31-2.166 1.31-2.167 1.63 1.68-69 1.78-80 1.152

110 109 197, 2 3 1 194 2 0 , 106, 109, 197 107 197 197 110 109 2 0 , 107 110 110 110 109 106 288 96 96 338

2.119-166 2.159 2.213 2.261-263

67 96, 97 96 96

6.114 6.285 6.286 6.293 6.299 6.300-309

3.340-408 3.350-354 3.351 3.351-353 3.351-406

2 0 , 106, 107 106, 110 96 97 95

7.51 7.57 7.63-74 7.161 7.367-8

4.155 4.386

343 96

5.184-226 5.199 5.201 5.202 5.211 5.215 5.216 5.218 5.219 5.220 5.226 5.227 5.228-236 5.362 5.388 5.391-93

337 329 345 345 345 345 336 336 337 338 334 329, 332 329 419 337, 338 419 45 96 96 345 335 96 194 194 194 338 194

I N D E X O F PASSAGES F R O M A N C I E N T W R I T E R S

a. Jewish Scriptures 1 Chronicles 24 24:7-18 2 Chronicles 12:1-12 Daniel 11:8 Deuteronomy 4:2 5:15 12:32 17:9 34:lff. Exodus 2:15 4:6 4:10 4:20 4:24-26 6.12 7:1 11:2 12:35-36 13:11-15 13:13 22:27 [28a] 22:28 (LXX) 25:10-22 25:23-40 26:31 27:1-8 28:4 28:39 29:9 30:1-10 30:17-21 30:19-21 32 Ezekiel 40:39-43 2:36-39 8:2-3 10:18-22 Genesis 28:12-13

3 4 3 n. 2 8 341 360 3 1 6 n . 16 126-127 45 2 6 0 n . 17 45 363 363 n. 35 324 353 259 12, 3 1 6 - 3 1 7 , 324 361 259 2 7 7 n . 16 324 324 324 324 33 3 5 6 - 3 5 7 n. 25 336 336 355 336 284 n. 47 284 n. 47 284 n. 47 336 337 337 355 337 343 343 3 4 3 (2) 382

34:1-31 34:2 35:22 37-50 38 39:1-5 39:14 39:17 Jeremiah 22 26 29 33-34 37-43 52 Joshua 2:24 5:1-8 5:5 7 9:15 18 22 2 Kings 4:8-6:8 5:1-27 Leviticus 1:4 3:2 3:8 4:29 4:33 7:12-14 7:30 12:2 12:2-8 12:5 13-14 13:46 14:8-10 15:2-15 19-30 15:13-15 15:14-15 15:31 21:21-23 23:17 Nehemiah 7:39-42

361 3 1 8 n. 21 355 95 355 271 271 271 95 95 95 95 95 95 363 361 361 364 364 364 364 3 5 3 n. 16 3 5 3 n . 16

'

334 334 334 334 334 340 334 331 332 331 3 0 5 n . 130 331 332 332 332 330 332 333 331 340 343

422 10:3-9 12:1-7 12:12-21 Numbers 5:2-3 2:10-15 16:15 19:13 19:20 19:22 21 2 5 : Iff. 1 Samuel 8:7 12:12-25 17:36 17:43 ( L X X ) 18.27 Zachariah 9:9 14:20-21

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

3 4 3 n. 2 8 3 4 3 n. 2 8 3 4 3 n. 2 8 332 3 0 5 n . 130 12, 3 1 7 333 333 332 355 356 365 n. 42 3 6 6 n. 4 4 361 361 n. 31 361 3 1 8 n . 21 338

b . Apocrypha Additions to Esther 16. Iff. 1 Maccabees 4:46 9:27 12:20-23 14.41 2 Maccabees 1:1-9 3

358 110 (2), 2 0 5 n. 4 9 6 n . 13 9 6 n . 13 254 9 6 n . 13 36 287

c. Pseudepigrapha Aristeas, L e t t e r (Epistle) of

4 2 , 4 8 , 110 (2), 154, 155 47 108 108 108 47, 217

De Universo 1 Enoch 4 Ezra Jubilees 4 Maccabees Sibylline O r a c l e s 3.648 282 n. 38 3.732 282 n. 38 4.80 282 n. 38 4.105 282 n. 38 4.143 282 n. 38 5.336 2 8 2 n. 3 8 W i s d o m of S o l o m o n (Sapientia Salomnis) 16-19 324

d. Dead Sea Scrolls 1 Q M 2.2 4Q274 4Q320-325 4Q328-330 4Q323 4Q324 4Q471 4QMMT B29-33 B59-62 B64-66 11QT 48.14-17

341 331 n. 6 341 341 342 342 341 n. 22 332 332 331 331

n. n. n. n.

7 7 5 6

e. Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Kelim 1.6 1:6-9 1:8 Kerithoth 2:1 Menahoth 8:2 8:7 11:7 Middoth 1:6 1:8-9 3:5 3:6 4:2 Mo ed Qatan 3:2 Pesahim 9:4 Sheqalim 5:1 5.4-5 6:4 Sotah 2:2 Sukkah 4:10 5:8 Ta'anith 4:2 Tamid 1:1 1:1-2 1:3 1:4 2:1

3 3 0 n. 2 2 1 , 330 333 331 340 340 337 340 342 337 337 345

c

331 331 3 4 0 (2) 340 337 (2) 337 n. 12 337 n . 12 342 344 342 334 340 337 (2) 337 (2)

423

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

3:4 3:5 3:7 3:8 5:1

338 337 345 337 3 3 5 n. 10, 3 3 6 n. 10, 342 335

5:3 Torna 3:10 3:11 4:5

337 340 3 3 7 (2)

5:6

331

Tosefta Sheqalim 2:14 Tamid 2:1

340 216, 343

Babylonian T a l m u d Berakhot 5b Megillah 9b

324 317

Jerusalem Talmud Ta'anith 68a

343

Midrash Lamentations 2.2.4

340

f. New

Rabbah

Testament

Acts 14:11-18 17:22-31 Hebrews 9:4 Luke 1:4 1:8 Mark 11:16

28 28 336 343 343 338

15:43 Matthew Romans 11:17

260 77 397

g. Papyri Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs 265, 267 P . British M u s e u m 10252 292 n. 84 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 450 293 n. 90 5 2 0 (= G . Vitelli et al., Pubblicazioni della Societä italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e Mini in Egitto: Papiri greci e latini 8.982) 1 1 , 2 7 7 n . 16, 282-283, 293, 294 P. L o n d o n de. 10223 284 n. 47 P. Louvre 3129 292 n. 8 4 P. O x y r h y n c h u s 840 338 Turin Papyrus 24 h.

Inscriptions

C a i r o Stele of y e a r 3 1 1 , lines 1 7 - 1 9 3 1 6 n . 17 Inscriptiones Graecae 2.2119 218 R a p h i a Stele 2 9 1 , 3 1 6 n . 17 Rosetta Stone (W. D i t t e n b e r g e r , Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae 9 0 , lines 9 - 1 0 , 26-28) 291 n. 75 i. Egyptian

Texts

B o o k of t h e D e a d 142 Demotic Chronicle H y m n of A m e n - M o s e Potter's Oracle

P r o p h e c y of t h e L a m b

279 134 280 134, 291, 305 134

n . 27 n . 31 273, 284, 292, 294, n . 129

I N D E X O F PASSAGES F R O M A N C I E N T A U T H O R S (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

A c u s i l a u s (Akusilaos) of A r g o s Ad Herennium: see Rhetorica ad Herennium Aelian(us) De Natura Animalium 10.16 10.28 Varia Historia 4 . 8 , 6.8 12.34 Aeschylus Aesculapius Africanus A g a t h a r c h i d e s of Cnidus

Agathocles History of Cyzicus ap. A t h e n a e u s 9.18.375e-376a Akusilaos: see A c u s i l a u s Alexander Polyhistor A m b r o s e (Ambrosius) Anaxagoras Anaxandrides frg. 3 9 ( K o c k 2.150 = Athenaeus 7.299a-300a) A n t i o c h u s (Antiochos) of S y r a c u s e Antiphanes frg. 147 ( K o c k 2.71 = A t h e n a e u s 7.299e) Antisthenes ap. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 6.2.1 A n t o n i u s Liberalis Metamorphoses 20 28

55

28.1-4 Apion

261 323 3 0 7 n. 132 257 3 7 2 n. 4 372 n. 4 24 3, 22, 29, 47, 55, 85, 8 8 , 8 9 n. 3 3 , 1 2 3 , 166, 170, 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 , 351

261 44, 46, 124 (2), 2 5 0 69 5, 5 5 , 3 8 8

256

Apollodorus (Apollodoros) of A t h e n s 2.5.11 A p o l l o n i u s (Apollonios) Molon

55

256

217

3 1 6 n. 18 3 1 6 n . 18

Apollonius Rhodius 2.1214-1215

2 9 5 n. 9 9 4 , 13, 15, 2 4 25, 26, 28, 2 9 (2), 3 0 , 32 (3), 3 3 , 3 4 (2), 3 6 (3), 3 9 (2), 4 0 (2), 4 1 , 4 2 (2), 43, 44, 45, 47 (3), 5 5 - 5 6 , 8 5 , 8 6 , 87 (4), 8 8 , 8 9 n. 3 2 , 9 0 , 9 1 , 9 2 (3), 9 3 (2), 1 1 8 ( 3 ) , 119, 124, 136, 137 n. 4 7 , 139, 1 5 1 , 152, 162, 163, 164, 169, 174, 183, 250, 2 5 1 , 2 5 3 , 256, 260, 2 6 1 , 262, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 2 7 3 , 3 0 4 (3), 3 0 6 , 3 0 7 , 310 317, 3 1 8 , 3 2 5 318, 325, 326, 355

56 258 4,12,30,39, 47, 56, 85, 87 n . 18, 8 9 , 118 (4), 125, 136 n. 4 3 , 152, 162, 164, 166, 183, 2 5 0 , 255, 259, 260, 268, 303, 304, 310, 326, 353, 355 2 9 5 n. 9 9

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

Apuleius Metamorphoses Aratus Archilochus (Pseudo-)Aristeas 31 92 95 96 Aristippus ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 2.85.5 Aristobulus Ariston of C h i o s ap. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.163.7 Aristophanes the Comedian Aristophanes the Grammarian Aristode

Rhetoric (The Art of Rhetoric) 1.2.2 1.2.8 1.2.13-17 1.2.14 1.2.15 1.3.1-3 1.3.3 1.15.1-33 1.15.2 1.15.3-33 1.15.17 1.141 2.20.1-2 2.20.1-26.5 2.22-23 2.23.7 2.23.23 2.23.24 2.25.8-11 3.14.7 3.15 3.15.2 3.15.4-5 3.15.7 3.17.1

257 372 n. 4 372 n. 4

3.17.5 Mcomachean 10.6.1 Protreptikos

299 Ethics

30 347 346 346-347

(Pseudo-)Aristotle Rhetoric to Alexander Arnobius A r t a p a n u s (Artapanos)

217 128, 2 1 7 372 n. 4

ap. E u s e b i u s , Praeparatio Evangelica 9.27.4.6 9.37 Augustine Confessions 3.4.7

218 372 5 6 , 124 3, 23, 24, 36, 1 2 3 , 170, 172, 179, 181, 250, 261, 267, 309 17 298 299 234 299 302 296 297 298 298 299 298 299, 161 299 298 299 299, 299 301 300 302 300 300 300 307 300, 298

Bellum Alexandrinum 7.2 Berossus (Berosus, Berossos) of B a b y l o n

199 217, 218, 219 3 0 0 n. 120 72 n . 5 2 4 4 , 128, 1 3 3 , 139, 217, 314

251-252 321

218

266-267 3, 20, 28, 29, 30, 44, 46, 48, 56, 85, 87, 88, 90, 122 (2), 1 2 3 , 1 3 3 , 159, 170, 1 8 1 , 185, 3 5 1 , 3 7 2 n. 4, 3 7 3 , 3 7 5 (2), 379, 394

n . 124 n . 109,

n. 116 n. 115 302 n. 91 n . 115 301 n. 118, n . 119 n . 124 n. 119

307 n . 115

425

C a d m u s (Kadmos) of M i l e t u s Callimachus frgs. 187, 188 Cassiodorus Institutiones 1.17.1 C a s s i u s D i o (Dio Cassius) Roman History 51.17.1 57.18.5a 60.6.6 65.1.4 67.14.1-2 67.14.2 68.1.1, 68.1.2 C a s t o r (Kastor) of R h o d e s Cato

57 257 9, 3 4 , 4 9 , 64, 69, 78 64 267 266 192 192 224 154 n . 5 0 191 192 192 57 172

426

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

Celsus True Word {A True Discourse [ap. O r i g e n , Against Celsus) 1.14 3.6 4.31 5.41 5.41.6 C h a e r e m o n (Chairemon) of A l e x a n d r i a

C h o e r i l u s (Choirilos) of S a m o s

Cicero

265, 378 381 381 381 195 190 3 , 8, 1 1 , 13, 2 3 , 2 5 (2), 28, 30, 32, 3 3 (2), 3 4 , 39, 4 1 , 42, 4 4 , 4 7 (2), 48, 56, 85, 88, 90, 93, 118 (2), 136, 162, 166, 168, 169, 179, 182, 250, 2 5 1 , 2 7 7 n . 18, 280, 2 8 1 , 2 8 2 , 283, 294, 304, 306 3, 26, 28, 33 38, 39, 44, 5 6 , 8 5 , 8 7 (3) 92, 9 3 , 123, 170, 181 16, 6 1 , 1 6 3 , 172

De Inventione 1.29 233 De Legibus 2.10.27 378 De Natura Deorum 1.43 256 3.1.5-4.10 379 De Oratore 2.51, 54, 5 5 - 5 7 232 2.62 232, 2.63 232 2.64 232, Hortensius 218 Philippica 8.81 258 Pro Flacco (For Flaccus) 28.69 195 Topica 11.50 234

n . 11 n . 11 n . 11

233 233

Cleanthes ap. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.175.9 C l e a r c h u s (Klearchos) of Soli

C l e m e n t of Alexandria Exhortation (Protreptikos) to the Greeks Stromata 1.21.101.3 1.21.147 5.14.113 C o n o n (Konon) Crameri anecdota Critias Damocritus De Iudaeis ap.

AaM-OKpuoq

D e m e t r i u s (Demetrios) D e m e t r i u s (Demetrios) of P h a l e r o n ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 5.81.13 D i o Cassius: see Cassius D i o Dio Chrysostom 32.1-2 32.101 Diodorus

3 7 2 n. 4 218 3 , 8, 2 3 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 2 , 3 6 (3), 42, 57, 85, 9 1 , 92 (2), 123, 170, 179, 1 8 1 , 2 5 0 72 n. 5 2

19, 2 1 9 , 221-222, 223 265 221 130 n. 32 5 7 , 124 6 8 n. 4 3 3 7 2 n. 4 151,325,326 285,

317

2 5 , 4 4 , 47 5 6 , 125, 149

217

173 266 307 n. 132 12, 6 1 , 130, 132, 2 9 2 , 326 130 n. 30 2 9 0 n. 74 2 8 0 n. 31 130 130 130 131 131 131 131

1.10-98 1.21 1.21-22 1.28.1-29.5 1.28.1 1.28.2 1.28.2-3 1.28.4 1.28.4-29.5 1.29.5 1.83, 1.83.1, 1.84.1, 1.86.1, 1.88 2 8 0 n. 3 1 , 2 9 3 n. 8 6 1.88.4-5 321

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

1.91.1 1.94.2 17.52 29.32 31.16 34.1 34.1-2 34-35.1.1-5 34-35.1-2 34-35.1.3 40.3.1-2 40.3.1-8 40.3.3 40.3.3-6 Diogenes Diogenes Laertius 5.22.12 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.9-2.29 D i o s (Dius)

Empedocles E p h o r u s (Ephoros) of C y m e Epictetus ap. A r r i a n , Dissertations 1.4.32 1 . 1 1 . 1 2 - 1 3 , 1.22.4, 2.9.20 Epicurus ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 10.28.13 Epistle to Diognetus Eratosthenes Katasterismoi 11 Euhemerus (Euhemeros) of M e s s e n e E u p o l e m u s (Eupolemos)

Pseudo-Eupolemus (Pseudo-Eupolemos) Euripides

256 314, 319 286 2 5 8 n . 13 2 5 8 n . 13 136 286 2 8 5 (2) 2 7 7 n. 18 286,310,314 2 9 5 n. 9 5 131 314 14 3 7 2 n. 4 217 6 1 , 174, 3 7 2 n. 4 24 3, 20, 30, 32, 42, 47, 5 6 , 122 (2), 170, 1 8 1 , 351, 395 372 n. 4 56 18, 1 5 1 , 192

199 189 3 7 2 n. 4

218 19, 2 1 9 , 220-221

257 5 6 , 124, 3 7 2 n. 4 44, 46, 47, 5 6 , 124, 125, 128, 149 44 3 7 2 n. 4

E u s e b i u s (Eusebios)

427

6, 2 4 , 4 4 , 6 8 - 6 9 , 116, 384-400 394 n. 4 4 394

Chronicle ( A r m e n i a n ) 20.24ff. 21.1.-23.29, 24.29-25.5 394 25.6-24 395 54.1-56.19 395 70.3-74.6 395 Demonstratio Evangelical!', 388, 392 Historia Ecclesiastica {Church History, Ecclesiastical History) 2.2.4 382 n. 23 3.9 66 3.9.2 141 3.9.4 6 9 , 116 n . 3 , 209 3.10.1-5 392 3.18 191 6 3 8 0 n . 15 6.14.10 68 n. 40 6.23.2 61 n . 27 Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) 32, 3 8 6 - 3 9 6 8.7.21 6 9 , 116 n . 3 8.8.1 3 8 8 n. 3 6 8.8.1-4 388 8.8.5-9 388 8.8.9-13 388 8.8.14-23 388 8.8.17 389 8.8.24-32 389 8.8.27 389 n. 38 8.8.32-36 389 8.8.37 389 8.8.38 390 8.8.39-42 390 8.8.43-48 390 8.8.48-49 390 8.8.50-51 391 8.8.51-55 391 8.8.56 391 9.40.1-2 394 9.40.3-11 394 9.42.1-3 394 9.42.4 386 10.6.15 6 9 , 116 n. 3 , 386 10.7.1-10 392 10.7.11-14 392 10.7.15-17 393 10.7.18 393

428

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS) 10.12.31 10.13.1-12 10.13.13

386 394-395 394, 395

Florus 4.2.60 Frontinus

266 151

Gellius, A u l u s 5.14.4 7.8.1 Georgios Monachos

15 264 265 7, 7 0 - 7 1

H e c a t a e u s (Hekataios) of A b d e r a

(Pseudo-)Hecataeus Hegesippus H e l l a n i c u s (Hellanikos) of L e s b o s H e r m i p p u s (Hermippos) of S m y r n a H e r m o g e n e s of S m y r n a Herodotus (Herodotos)

Histories 2.2-4 2.4 2.53

3 , 13, 14, 19, 2 0 , 2 2 , 2 8 (2), 2 9 (2), 3 0 (2), 3 3 , 3 4 (3), 3 6 , 3 8 , 3 9 , 4 0 (2), 4 2 , 4 4 (4), 4 6 , 47,48,56-57, 6 0 , 8 5 , 8 6 (2), 8 7 (2), 8 8 , 8 9 (2), 9 0 , 91 (4), 9 2 , 9 3 , 1 2 3 , 130, 1 3 1 , 132, 1 3 3 , 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 160, 170, 176, 179, 181,250, 254, 267, 269, 277 n . 18, 2 9 5 n. 9 5 , 3 1 4 , 351 29, 33, 42, 47, 60 64 57 3, 29, 33, 47, 5 7 , 123 5 7 , 124 3 , 15, 5 7 , 7 7 , 109, 129, 132, 157, 170, 178, 3 5 1 , 372 n. 4, 373 253 4 3 , 49, 50, 5 1 , 130 119-120 n . 12

2.57, 58 2.79, 8 1 , 82 2.91 2.104 2.121 2.142 2.143 2.144 2.156

130 130 130, 2 5 5 360 260 259 120,123,253 289 2 8 0 n. 3 1 , 289 289 257-258 255 254 254 372

3.5 4.129 6.35.2ff. 6.106 7.104 Hesiod Theogony 535-557 256 H i e r o n y m u s : see J e r o m e Hieronymus (Hieronymus) of C a r d i a 3 , 6, 5 7 , 170, 176 Hieronymus the Egyptian 122 n. 15 H i p p o l y t u s (Hippolytos) 6 Refiitatio Omnium Haeresium 9, 1 8 - 2 9 67 Homer 35,41,57,87, 121,372,374, 377, 379, 392 Iliad 257 Horace Odes 1.31 32 1.37 263 Satires 1.4.139-143 190 Hyginus Astronomia 2.3.33 257 Iamblichus Protreptikos Irenaeus I s o c r a t e s (Isokrates) J e r o m e (Hieronymus) Adversus Iovinianum 2.14 Adversus Rufinum De Viris Illustrious 13 53

218 72 n . 5 2 57 116 7 0 , 116 n. 2 2.22 n. 16 70, 116 n. 2 3 8 2 n. 2 3

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

Epistulae 7 0 , ad Magnum 70.3 71.5.2 In Danielem 2.5.1 In Hiezechiekm 2.5.12-13 Juba J u l i u s Africanus Justin Martyr (Pseudo-)Justin Cohortatio ad Graecos, Patrologia Graeca 6.241 6.257 J u s t u s of T i b e r i a s Juvenal Satires 1.3.14 2.6.543-547 5.14.96-106 15 K a d m o s : see C a d m u s K a s t o r : see C a s t o r K l e a r c h o s : see Clearchus K o n o n : see C o n o n Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos K o s m a s Indikopleustes XpiGTiavucn xoTioypacpia L a c t a n t i u s (Laktanz) De Falsa Religione 1.22 Institutes 1.21-27 Livy (Livius) 33.49 41.20 45.12 (Pseudo-)Longinus Lucan Pharsalia 10.59-67 Lucian Hermotimus How to Write History Philosophies for Sale

7 0 , 116 n . 2 69

Wisdom of Mgrinus 19 Lysimachus (Lysimachos)

70 70 384 385 378, 379, 397 378-380, 399-400 3 7 9 n . 13 3 8 0 n . 14 117 n . 7 18, 1 5 1 , 192, 215, 264 190 190 189 266

7, 7 1 , 7 8 6 70 72 n . 5 2 257 257 52, 269 258 2 5 8 n . 13 258 250

263 199 2 3 1 n. 8 199

Manetho (Manethon)

429

219-220 3 , 13, 2 3 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 4 , 3 6 (2), 39, 47, 57, 85, 8 7 (2), 8 8 (2), 9 0 , 9 1 , 9 3 (2), 118 (2), 119, 136, 149, 152, 162, 166, 169, 175, 2 5 0 , 251, 255, 2 7 7 n . 18, 281 n. 32, 3 0 3 , 3 0 4 (2) 3 , 8, 10, 1 1 , 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 25, 27, 2 8 (4), 2 9 , 3 0 (2), 3 2 (6), 3 3 , 3 4 (2), 35 (3), 3 6 (2), 3 7 , 3 8 (4), 3 9 , 4 0 (3), 4 1 (2), 4 2 (2), 4 3 , 4 4 (3), 4 5 , 4 6 (2), 4 7 (3), 5 7 , 8 5 , 8 7 (2), 8 8 (7), 8 9 (4), 9 0 (5), 9 1 (5), 9 2 (4), 9 3 (2), 118 (2), 1 2 1 , 122, 1 3 3 , 134 (2), 1 3 5 , 136, 137, 139 n . 4 8 , 149, 160, 162, 1 6 3 , 168, 169, 170, 177, 178, 179, 1 8 1 , 182, 186, 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 , 253, 255, 259, 267, 269, 273, 275, 276, 2 7 7 (2), 2 7 8 , 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 2 9 4 , 3 0 4 (2), 305, 306, 308, 321,322, 323, 372 n. 4, 374, 376, 379, 3 9 4 - 3 9 5

430

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

Martial Megasthenes M e n a n d e r (Menandros) of E p h e s u s

M e n a n d e r of L a o d i c e a M i n u c i u s Felix Octavius 10, 3 3 M n a s e a s of P a t a r a

Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (ed. F . J a c o b y ) I I I A , n . 2 6 4 , fr. 10 Monimus ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 6.83.14 Nicarchus N i c o l a u s (Nikolaos, Nicolas) of D a m a s c u s

(Pseudo-) O p p i a n u s Cynegetica 4.256 O r i g e n (Origenes) Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) 1.15 1.16 4.11 4.31 4.39 6.42 O v i d (Ovidius) Fasti 1.391

1.440 6.345 Metamorphoses 5.346-358 11.146-193

151 57, 250, 267, 351 3, 20, 28, 30, 32, 39, 4 1 , 42, 47, 57-58, 85, 9 0 , 91 (3), 9 2 , 122 (2), 170, 3 5 1 , 372 n. 4, 395, 395 n. 45 2 4 (3)

195 12, 13, 4 7 , 5 8 , 8 5 , 8 9 , 124, 166, 2 8 6 , 3 0 4 , 310,311,313, 314,315,317, 318, 325, 326

16 n . 18

217 151 20, 58, 122 n. 15, 124, 351

257 6, 2 9 , 6 1 , 3 7 8 2 8 , 156, 2 6 9 , 380-382 67-68 6 7 - 6 8 , 381 67-68, 1 1 6 n . 3, 381 382 382 289 n. 68

257

257 257 2 9 5 n. 9 9 257

Paul Sentences 5.22.3-4 193 Pausanias 61 10.18.4 257 Persaeus ap. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.36.15 217-218 P h e r e c y d e s of Syros 129 Philemon 3 7 2 n. 4 P h i l o (Philon) t h e E l d e r 5 8 , 125, 149 P h i l o (Philon) of Alexandria 31 (2), 3 3 , 3( 37, 4 1 , 42, 50, 5 1 , 58, 133, 139, 154, 155, 163, 217 De Specialibus Legibus 1.53 3 5 6 n. 2 5 1.198-199 334 2:145-146 334 De Vita Mosis 1.1.2 251 2.94 336 2.205 356 n. 25 Hypothetic 2 4 , 2 6 (2), 27 (2), 3 5 , 3 6 , 3 8 (2), 3 9 (2), 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 5 , 47 7.1-9 26 7.9 45 In Flaccum 32, 46 51, 54 174 n. 153 Legatio ad Gaium 5 6 , 6 8 - 6 9 , 86ff., lOlff., 119, 141ff., 182, 2 0 8 , 2 4 2 , 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 , 264, 271, 275, 298, 324, 327, 337, 347-348 174 n. 153 362 261 370-371 174 n. 153 Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres 226 336 P h i l o of Byblus 133

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

Philo of L a r i s a ap. S t o b a e u s , 2.7.2 Philostratus (Philostratos) Apollonius of Tyana 5.33 Pindar Nemean Odes 7.59 Pythian Odes 1 10.33 10.3ff. scholia o n 10.49 Pseudo-Phocylides Photius Plato (Platon)

ap. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 3.60.4 Euthydemus Laws 2.656e 3.677d 12.949e ff. Phaedrus 248c-e Republic 6.499c-d 8.544c 8.546a Timaeus 22a-c 22b 41d-42e Pliny t h e E l d e r Maturalis Historia (Natural History) praef. 25 2.187 9.119 30.90 36.73 37.19.75 Pliny t h e Y o u n g e r Panegyricus 31.2 Plutarch

219 351 195 372 n. 4 260 257 3 1 6 n. 18 257 26, 27, 36 132 5, 15, 5 8 , 8 9 , 127, 128, 2 5 9 n . 15, 3 7 2 n. 4 , 382, 388, 391 217 217, 218 19, 5 0 , 126 253 119 255 382 132 259 259 120 253 382 15, 4 7

174 n . 154, 264 252 263 256 252 265

266 7, 3 0 , 6 1 , 151, 292, 325, 326

Antony 67 Camillus 22 De hide et Osiride 8, 1 2 - 2 1 14 30 31

33 49, 62 72 73 Lycurgus 27.4 31.2-3 Quaestiones Convivales 4.5.2

P o l y b i u s (Polybios) 4.2.2-4 6.4.3 26.1 28.22 29.11 29.24 30.25.1-26.9 P o l y c r a t e s (Polykrates) of A t h e n s Pompeius Trogus ap. J u s t i n 36.2.12 36.2.14 P o r p h y r y (Porphyrios) De Abstinentia 4.11 4.11-14 P o s i d o n i u s (Poseidonios) of A p a m e i a ( A p a m e a )

ap. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.91.8 P r o c o p i u s (Prokopios) of G a z a

431

254 260 2 6 5 n. 2 4 2 8 0 n. 31 2 8 1 n. 32 293 n. 85 11,289, 3 0 7 n . 132, 317, 3 2 0 - 3 2 1 , 323 321 294-295 n. 95 266 293, 294-295 n. 95 259 66 261 288 311 58 231 363 258 258 258 258 258

(2), n. 64,

n. 8 n. 34 (2) n . 13 n . 13 n. 13

58

2 7 7 n . 18 321 7 6 8 , 116 n . 4 141 4 , 12, 3 0 , 3 6 (2), 4 0 , 5 8 , 164, 166, 183, 2 5 1 , 310, 312, 313, 314, 326 218 6

432

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

Patrologia Graeca 87.484 Propertius 3.11.29ff. P r o t a g o r a s of A b d e r a P t o l e m y of M e n d e s ap. T a t i a n , Ad Graecos 38 P y t h a g o r a s of Samos

Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 2.4.3 2.4.4-8 2.4.18 3.6.30 3.6.34 3.6.44 4.2.89-90 5.13.53 10.1.31 10.1.32-33 12.11.4 Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.16 4.53 R u f i n u s (Rufin) Satyrus Scriptores Historiae Augustae 22 A 29.8.1, 29.8.5 Quadrigae Tyrannorum 1A . Septimius Severus 17.1 S e n e c a (the Elder) Controversiae Suasoriae S e n e c a (the Y o u n g e r ) Epistulae Morales 88.40 90 On Superstition (ap. A u g u s t i n e , City qfG-d 6.11)

70 263 3 7 2 n. 4

384 3, 3 1 , 33, 3 6 , 5 9 , 127, 129, 170, 1 8 1 , 3 7 2 n. 4, 388 16, 1 5 1 , 172, 173, 231 163 232 2 3 1 , 232 232 234 234 234 232 2 9 6 n . 103 232 233 231 16, 1 7 3 , 2 2 9 , 231 2 3 3 n . 11 234 64, 69 372 n. 4 266 266 266 193 263 263

174 n . 154 218

190, 2 6 5

Sextus Empiricus Hypotyposeis 3.219 S i m m i a s of R h o d e s ap. A n t o n i n u s Liberalis, Metamorphoses 20 Simonides Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 337-341 Statius Silvae 5.5.66-69 S t r a b o (Strabon) of Amaseia 17.1.29.806 S u d a (Suidas) s.v. M n a s e a s Suetonius Claudius 25 Domitian(us) 12 15.1 Nero Tiberius 36 Syncellus (Synkellos, Sothis) Tacitus

Annals 1.1 2.85 15.55 Dialogue on Oratory Histories (Historiae) 5 5.1-13 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.3 5.2.6 5.3 5.4.2 5.4.4 5.5 5.10.1

256

257 3 7 2 n. 4 3 7 2 n. 4 255

266 59, 314 252 315 51 192 191 154 n. 5 0 61 192 2 4 , 6 8 n. 4 3 7, 12, 18, 3 6 (2), 6 6 , 1 5 1 , 192, 215, 325, 326 250 192 61 264 250 1 8 8 - 1 8 9 , 195 289 261 270 321 6 5 , 119, 2 7 7 n. 18 3 1 1 , 317 270 189 270

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT AUTHORS (EXCLUSIVE OF JOSEPHUS)

5.13.3 Tatian

270 6

'ETCIGTOAJJ 7tpOÇ TO\)Ç

"EKfa\vac, Tertullian Apologeticum (Apology) 10 16.1-3 19 19.6 21 Thaies Thallus Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (ed. F. J a c o b y ) 2 B 1156-1158 T h e o d o t u s (Theodotos) Theon Progymnasmata 8 Theophilus Theophilus (Theophilos) of A n t i o c h Ad Autolycum 1.1 2.7 2.33 3 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.19 3.19-29 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24-25 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.29

3.30 Theophrastus (Theophrastos)

66 6, 3 2 , 3 1 7 , 397, 398 382-384 383 317 376, 383, 384 66-67 383 129, 3 8 3

383 5 9 , 124

2 6 8 n. 3 0 124 6, 3 2 , 5 9 , 371-378, 398 371 372 373 371-372 66 372 3 7 3 (2) 373 66 265 3 7 4 (2), 3 7 6 374, 376 3 7 4 (2) 374 375 373, 374 374 66, 373, 375

ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 5.49.18 Theopompus ( T h e o p o m p o s ) of Chios Thestius Thucydides (Thukydides)

1.1 1.22 1.70.2 2.60 T i m a e u s of Tauromenium T i m a g e n e s of Alexandria Timochares ap. E u s e b i u s , Praeparatio Evangelica 9.35.1 Timocles frg. 1 ( K o c k 2.300 = Athenaeus 7.300a-b)

373 3, 29, 34, 4 4 (2), 5 9 , 123, 2 5 0 , 267 217

59 372 n. 4 15, 5 0 , 5 9 , 7 7 , 109, 157, 178, 3 7 2 n . 4 2 3 1 n. 8 231 n. 8 259 25 59 36, 59 326

313 n. 9

256

Varro Valerius M a x i m u s On Superstition Vellerns P a t e r c u l u s 1.10 Virgil Aeneid 4 8.675-713 8.688

258 269

Zeno Zopyrion

372 n. 4 5 9 , 124

t

433

250 192

263 262 262

INDEX OF ANCIENT NAMES

Abraham 128, 130, 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 , 2 5 4 , 351, 354, 360 A c u s i l a u s 5 5 , 159 A g a t h a r c h i d e s (of C n i d u s ) 3, 29, 47, 4 8 , 5 5 , 8 5 , 8 8 n . 2 0 , 8 9 n . 3 3 , 159, 166, 170, 2 5 3 - 2 5 4 , 3 5 1 Agrippa II 25 Agrippa 156 Ajax 257 A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r 4 4 , 4 6 , 124, 250 Alexander the Great 46, 121, 227, 393 Alexandria 3 - 4 , 13, 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 4 , 4 1 , 4 3 - 4 4 , 4 8 , 1 1 3 , 118, 134, 136 n n . 4 3 - 4 4 , 1 5 4 - 1 5 6 , 1 6 3 - 1 6 4 , 174, 266, 284 n. 47, 286, 292, 296, 315, 3 1 6 n . 16, 3 5 6 - 3 5 7 n. 2 5 Ambrosius 69 Amenophis 3 1 , 3 8 , 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 , 169, 2 4 5 , 2 4 7 , 2 7 7 n. 17, 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 , 2 8 0 n. 30, 2 8 1 , 294, 3 0 4 - 3 0 5 , 3 7 5 - 3 7 6 Anacharsis 159 A n a x a g o r a s (of C l a s o m e n a e ) 5 5 , 159 Andreas 159, 184 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 110, 2 5 8 , 268, 312, 326 A n t i o c h u s (of Syracuse) 55 Apion 1, 4 , 9, 1 2 - 1 3 , 15, 2 3 , 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 1 - 3 2 , 34, 36, 3 9 - 4 3 , 4 5 , 4 7 - 4 8 , 8 5 - 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 1 - 9 3 , 9 8 , 112, 116, 1 1 8 - 1 1 9 , 1 2 5 , 136, 139, 1 4 1 , 1 5 1 , 159, 1 6 2 - 1 6 4 , 166, 169, 174, 178, 1 8 3 , 185, 194, 2 1 1 , 2 2 7 , 2 3 0 , 2 5 0 - 2 5 3 , 256, 258, 260, 262-270, 273, 285, 296, 298, 304, 306-307, 310, 314, 3 1 7 - 3 1 8 , 325-326, 328, 344, 355, 358 Apollo 3 1 , 3 1 4 - 3 1 6 Apollodorus 5 6 , 159, 2 5 8 Apollonius M o l o n 4, 30, 39, 4 3 , 4 7 , 5 6 , 8 5 , 8 9 , 118 n. 18, 1 2 5 , 159, 162, 164, 166, 1 8 3 , 2 5 1 , 255, 259-260, 268, 303, 304, 310, 3 2 5 - 3 2 6 , 353, 355 A r g o s , h i s t o r i a n s of 159 A r i s t e a s 2 4 , 3 0 , 4 2 , 4 8 , 110, 1 5 4 - 1 5 5 , 159, 184, 2 2 7

Aristeas ( C h r i s t i a n bishop) 391-392 Aristobulus 128 n. 2 7 , 2 1 7 , 391 Aristobulus I 203 Aristophanes 124, 159, 3 7 2 Aristode 3 , 17, 2 3 , 3 6 , 3 9 , 1 2 3 , 159, 161 n. 9 1 , 170, 172, 179, 1 8 1 , 199, 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 , 2 3 4 , 2 5 0 , 261, 267, 2 9 8 - 3 0 3 , 309, 393 Artapanus 13, 128, 1 3 3 , 139, 2 1 7 , 2 5 1 , 3 1 4 n. 1 1 , 3 2 1 Artaxerxes 3 6 , 9 9 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , 110, 201, 358-359 Attidographers 159 A u l u s Gellius 15, 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 A z i z u s , k i n g of E m e s a 204 Balaam 201, 225 Berenike 204 Berossus 3 , 2 0 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 4 7 , 8 5 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 9 0 , 122, 123 n. 17, 133, 159, 1 8 1 - 1 8 2 , 185, 3 5 1 , 3 7 3 , 375, 394 Bilhah 355 Cadmus 5 7 , 1 3 1 , 159 Callias 159 Callimachus 257 Calliphon 159 Cassiodorus 7, 9, 251 C a s t o r 5 7 , 159 Chaeremon 3 , 8, 1 1 , 13, 2 5 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 2 - 3 4 , 39, 4 1 , 4 3 - 4 4 , 4 7 - 4 8 , 85, 8 8 , 9 0 , 9 3 , 118, 136, 159, 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 , 166, 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 , 179, 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 , 2 8 0 - 2 8 4 , 304, 306 C h o e r i l u s (of S a m o s ) 4 4 , 5 6 , 123 n . 2 0 , 159, 170, 181 Chrestus 192 Cicero 16, 5 3 , 1 6 3 , 172, 195, 2 2 9 , 231-234, 236-237, 239, 243-244, 2 5 8 , 3 7 8 - 3 7 9 n. 11 Claudius 136 n. 4 3 , 192, 211 Cleanthes 125, 159, 2 1 8 C l e a r c h u s (of Soli) 3 1 , 3 6 , 5 7 , 8 5 , 159, 170, 1 8 1 , 2 5 0 C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a 130 n. 3 2 , 141 n. 5 0 , 2 6 5 Cleopatra 2 6 2 - 2 6 3 , 269

435

ANCIENT NAMES

Conon 5 7 , 124, 159 Constantinus Porphyrogennetos C o s m a s Indikopleustes 70 Cyrus 201, 375, 3 9 4 - 3 9 5

71

Damocritus 151, 285, 317, 325, 326 Daniel 35, 9 4 - 9 5 , 97, 112-114, 199, 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 7 , 3 6 8 , 3 9 4 Demetrius Phalereus 124, 149 D e m e t r i u s (of P h a l e r o n ) 5 6 , 159, 184, 217 D i a g o r a s (of Melos) 159 Dinah 361 D i o Cassius 154 n. 5 0 , 2 6 6 - 2 6 7 Dio Chrysostom 173, 266 D i o d o r u s Siculus 2 8 0 n . 3 1 , 2 8 5 , 289, 2 9 2 - 2 9 3 Diodorus 14, 130 n. 3 0 , 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 , 136, 2 5 6 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 5 n. 9 5 , 3 1 0 n. 1, 3 1 3 - 3 1 4 , 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 Dionysius of H a l i c a r n a s s u s 2 4 , 61 D i u s 3 0 - 3 1 , 4 7 , 5 6 , 122 n. 15, 159, 170, 1 8 1 , 3 9 5 Domitian 3 1 , 6 1 , 154, 1 7 3 , 1 9 1 , 2 2 3 Draco 159 Drusilla 204

133 n . 3 7 , 159, 170, 179, 1 8 1 , 2 1 1 , 250, 295 n. 95, 314 H e c a t a e u s (of Miletus) 120, 2 5 3 H e l l a n i c u s (of Lesbos) 5 7 , 159 H e r m i p p u s (of S m y r n a ) 3 3 , 5 7 , 159 Hermogenes 5 7 , 124, 159 H e r o d the Great 122 n . 15, 124 Herodotus 3 , 15, 5 7 , 109, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 n . 12, 1 2 3 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 1 , 157, 159, 170, 178, 1 8 1 , 2 3 4 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 3 - 2 5 5 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 , 2 8 0 n. 3 1 , 2 8 9 , 3 0 6 , 3 5 1 , 360, 373 Hesiod 159, 2 5 6 , 3 7 2 H i e r o n y m u s (of C a r d i a ) 122 n. 15, 159, 170 H i p p o l y t u s 6, 6 7 Homer 3 5 , 8 7 , 1 2 1 , 126, 128 n . 2 8 , 159, 2 5 7 , 3 7 2 , 3 7 4 , 3 7 7 , 3 7 9 - 3 8 0 , 392 Hyperochides

159

Isaiah 201 Isis 3 6 , 169, 2 7 7 n . 16, 2 8 0 - 2 8 3 , 291-292 Isocrates 57, 232 Izates 2 0 6 , 2 0 7 , 2 1 4

E l e a z a r (high priest) 214-215, 363-364 Epaphroditus 1, 5, 2 9 , 3 1 , 6 0 , 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 , 197, 2 0 0 , 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 , 2 2 0 Epictetus 18, 1 5 1 , 189, 192, 199 Eratosthenes 58, 257, 315 Euhemerus 124, 159 E u p o l e m u s 4 6 , 5 6 , 1 2 4 - 1 2 5 , 128, 149, 159 E u s e b i u s 6, 2 4 , 3 2 , 112, 116 n . 3 , 124 n n . 2 3 - 2 4 , 133 n. 3 8 , 1 4 1 , 1 9 1 , 2 0 9 , 2 5 2 , 2 5 3 - 2 5 4 n . 10, 3 1 3 n. 9, 371, 3 8 4 - 4 0 2

Jeremiah 9 4 - 9 5 , 9 7 , 112, 2 0 1 Jerome 2 3 , 116 n . 2 J o h n Hyrcanus 203, 288 Joseph 9 4 - 9 5 , 112-113, 260, 2 7 1 , 282, 306, 322 Joshua 363-364, 366 J u d a h (biblical, a n d T a m a r ) 355 Julian (Emperor) 396 Julius Africanus 385, 401 Justin Martyr 3 7 8 - 3 7 9 , 397 J u s t u s (of T i b e r i a s ) 117 n. 7 Juvenal 18, 1 5 1 , 189, 192, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 , 266

Felix 204 Flavia D o m i t i l l a 191 Flavius C l e m e n s 191 Frontinus 151 Fulvia 191-192, 201, 203-204

King J u b a

Gaius 136 n. 4 3 Georgios M o n a c h o s

7, 7 0 - 7 1

Hadrian 3 1 , 193, 2 2 8 , 2 6 6 Haman 203, 358 Helena (Queen) 206 H e c a t a e u s (of A b d e r a ) 1 2 3 , 130, 132,

384

Lactantius 257 Livy 5 2 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 9 Lucian 199, 2 1 9 , 2 3 1 n . 8 Lycurgus 120, 126, 159, 2 5 1 , 2 5 9 Lysimachus 13, 2 9 , 3 4 , 3 6 , 3 9 , 4 3 , 4 7 , 8 5 , 8 7 - 8 8 , 9 0 - 9 1 , 118 n . 10, 119, 136 n . 4 3 , 139 n . 4 8 , 149, 159, 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 , 166, 169, 178, 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 , 255, 259, 275 nn. 8-9, 2 9 4 - 2 9 5 n. 9 5 , 3 0 3 - 3 0 4 , 3 0 5 n . 130

436

ANCIENT NAMES

Manetho 3 , 8, 10, 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 8 - 4 3 , 4 5 - 4 7 , 8 6 - 9 1 , 9 3 , 100, 117 n . 6, 118 n . 10, 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 , 1 3 3 - 1 3 5 , 139 n . 4 8 , 149, 159, 1 6 2 - 1 6 3 , 166, 169-170, 177-179, 181, 229, 241-248, 2 5 1 - 2 5 3 , 255, 259, 273, 275 nn. 8-9, 276, 278, 284, 293, 2 9 4 - 2 9 5 n . 9 5 , 3 0 4 , 3 0 5 n . 130, 306, 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 , 325, 374, 376, 3 7 8 - 3 7 9 n. 11, 3 9 4 - 3 9 5 , 398 Marcion, Marcionites 371 Martial 151 Megasthenes 5 7 , 159, 2 5 0 , 2 6 7 , 351 Menander 5 7 - 5 8 , 122 n. 15, 159, 170 Minos 159 M i n u s i u s Felix 195 Mnaseas 12, 5 8 , 159, 2 8 6 , 3 0 4 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 n. 16 Molon 152, 2 5 5 Nero 6 1 , 191 Nerva 31, 192-193, 223 Nicarchus 151 N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s 5 5 , 122 n. 15, 123 n. 17, 124, 159 N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s 122 n . 15 Noah 1 2 3 , 185 N u m e n i u s of A p a m e a Oedipus

2 5 2 - 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 , 2 5 9 n. 15, 3 5 7 , 3 8 6 , 3 8 8 , 391 Pliny t h e E l d e r 15, 2 5 6 , 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 Plutarch 7, 1 1 , 6 1 , 6 6 , 1 5 1 , 2 3 4 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 , 2 6 5 n. 2 4 , 2 6 6 , 2 8 0 n. 3 1 , 2 8 8 n . 6 4 , 2 9 2 - 2 9 3 , 311, 320, 325-326 P o l e m o , k i n g of Cilicia 204 Polybius 5 8 , 112, 159, 231 n n . 8 - 9 , 2 5 8 n. 13, 2 6 8 , 3 6 7 P o l y c r a t e s of A t h e n s 58 Poppea Sabina 191 Porphyry 7, 4 9 , 6 8 n. 4 , 116, 141 P o s i d o n i u s 4 , 12, 3 0 , 3 6 , 4 7 , 5 8 , 159, 164, 166, 1 8 3 , 2 1 8 , 2 5 1 , 3 1 0 n. 1, 3 1 2 - 3 1 4 , 3 2 5 - 3 2 6 P r o c o p i o s of G a z a 6, 70 P r o t a g o r a s 5, 159 Pseudo-Aristeas 346-347 Pseudo-Aristode 3 0 0 n. 120 Pseudo-Justin 6, 3 7 8 - 3 8 0 , 3 9 9 Pseudo-Oppianus 257 P t o l e m y of M e n d e s 384 Pythagoras 3 3 , 5 9 , 120, 123, 1 2 7 - 1 2 9 , 159, 170, 1 8 1 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 , 3 8 8 Quintilian 16, 3 2 , 1 5 1 , 1 7 2 - 1 7 3 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 3 - 2 3 6 , 2 3 7 n. 16, 2 3 8 n. 17, 239-241, 243

141 n . 5 0

255

Origen 6, 2 7 , 2 9 , 4 9 , 6 1 , 6 7 - 6 8 , 116 n . 3 , 190, 2 6 5 , 2 8 9 n . 6 8 , 378, 3 8 1 - 3 8 2 , 401 Osarsiph 17, 3 2 , 1 3 5 , 169, 2 4 7 , 2 5 5 , 278, 279 n. 27, 305 Ovid 257 Pan 257 Pausanias 6 1 , 257 Peisistratus 159 P h e r e c y d e s of Syros 129 Philistus 159 P h i l o of ( J u d a e u s ) 5 0 - 5 1 , 58, 133 n . 3 9 P h i l o of Byblos 133 P h i l o t h e E l d e r 5 8 , 1 2 4 - 1 2 5 , 149, 159 Philocrates 159 P h i l o s t r a t u s 5 8 , 159 Photius 131 n . 3 3 , 132, 136 Pindar 257, 260 Plato 15, 4 2 , 5 0 , 5 8 , 8 9 , 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 , 1 4 1 , 159, 172, 2 1 7 ,

R a m e s s e s [sic] (son of A m e n o p h i s ) 1 1 , 169, 281 Reuben 355 Rome 1, 18, 2 1 , 2 4 - 2 5 , 2 8 , 4 8 , 9 4 - 9 5 , 1 1 0 - 1 1 2 , 148, 158, 1 6 3 , 1 7 1 - 1 7 2 , 178, 185, 1 8 7 - 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 - 1 9 5 , 197, 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 , 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 , 211, 220, 222-226, 229-230, 253-254, 257, 2 6 2 - 2 6 3 , 295, 338, 367, 382, 397 Rufinus 69 Samuel 365-367 Septimius Severus 193 Sextus Empiricus 256 S i m m i a s (of R h o d e s ) 257 S o c r a t e s 5 , 125, 155, 159, 172, 2 9 7 n. 106, 3 9 7 Solomon 3 4 , 4 1 , 4 8 , 122, 124, 199-200, 3 5 1 , 359, 374, 395 Solon 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 , 126, 159, 2 5 3 S p a r t a , S p a r t a n s 5, 1 4 - 5 5 , 1 3 1 , 155, 176, 2 1 5 , 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 , 2 5 9 n. 15, 2 6 0 , 2 6 8 - 2 7 0 , 391 S t r a b o 5 9 , 159, 2 5 2

ANCIENT NAMES

S u e t o n i u s 5 0 n . 13, 1 4 1 , 154 n. 5 0 , 191-192, 224 G e o r g e Syncellus 6 8 - 6 9 n. 4 3 Tacitus 7, 18, 3 6 , 6 5 - 6 6 , 1 5 1 , 1 8 8 - 1 8 9 , 192, 195, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 , 250, 270, 288 n. 64, 289, 3 1 1 , 317, 3 2 5 - 3 2 6 Tatian 6, 6 6 , 3 8 4 Tertullian 6, 6 6 - 6 7 , 3 7 6 , 3 8 2 - 3 8 4 , 397-398, 402 Thales 129, 3 8 3 T h e o d o t u s 5 9 , 124, 159 Theon 2 6 8 n. 30 T h e o p h i l u s (of A n t i o c h ) 6, 5 9 , 6 6 , 265, 398 Theophrastus 3, 28, 34, 44, 123, 159, 2 1 7 , 2 5 0 , 2 6 7

437

Theopompous 15, 5 0 , 5 9 , 9 9 , 109, 157, 159, 178, 2 3 1 n . 8, 2 3 2 Thucydides 15, 5 0 , 5 9 , 9 9 , 109, 157, 159, 178, 2 3 1 n . 8 T i m a e u s (of T a u r o m e n i o n ) 5 9 , 120, 1 2 1 , 159, 2 5 3 , 3 8 2 T i m a g e n e s (of A l e x a n d r i a ) 59 T i t u s (of Vita 363) 2 5 , 6 1 , 100, 120, 175, 194, 3 3 8 Vespasian 2 5 , 100, 106,. 114, 1 7 3 , 224 Veturia Paulla 190 Zaleucus 159 Zeno 125, 159, 2 1 7 Zeus 124, 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 7 8 , 2 8 9 Zophyrion 5 9 , 124, 159

SUBJECT INDEX

Adiabene c o n v e r s i o n s t o J u d a i s m , 18, 205-207, 221-222 Aliens J e w s ' k i n d n e s s t o w a r d , 19, 2 1 3 , 3 5 7 Antiquities a n c i e n t titles of, 7 6 ; p u r p o s e of, m o r e t h a n apologetics, 1 9 6 - 2 0 7 ; e v a l u a t i o n of in r e l a t i o n t o J e w i s h canon, 103-105, 107-109; and a p o l o g e t i c s , 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 ; c o n v e r s i o n in, 2 0 1 - 2 0 7 ; r e f e r e n c e to in O r i g e n , 3 8 1 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 (Brüll) A n t i q u i t i e s a n d C A , d a t a in c o m m o n relation, 2 0 - 2 1 , 3 4 8 - 3 6 8 ; direct references in C A t o A n t . , 3 5 0 - 3 5 1 ; defense of A n t . in C A , 1 1 6 - 1 1 8 ; s h a r e d citations w i t h C A of o t h e r sources, 3 5 1 ; Jewish heroes, 3 5 3 - 3 5 5 ; J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s (e.g., circumcision), 3 5 9 - 3 6 2 ; theocracy, 3 6 2 - 3 6 6 ; l e p e r libel, 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 ; alleged sacrifice of a gentile, 3 5 5 ; J e w i s h a t h e i s m , 3 5 5 - 3 5 6 ; libels a b o u t t e m p l e a n d w o r s h i p (including ass's h e a d ) , 3 5 5 ; c h a r g e of misanthropy, 356-359; Greek v o c a b u l a r y c o m p a r e d w i t h C A , 9, 8 8 n. 2 1 , 8 8 n. 2 5 , 8 9 n. 3 3 , 9 2 n . 4 8 , 9 3 n . 5 4 ; q u e s t i o n of i n t e n d e d audience, Jewish a n d non-Jewish, 50 Apion biographical a n d bibliographical i n f o r m a t i o n , 5 5 - 5 6 ; as l e a d e r of Alexandrian delegation to Gaius, 136 n. 4 3 ; a l o n g w i t h M a n e t h o as A l e x a n d r i a n w r i t e r cited b y J o s e p h u s , 139 n . 4 8 ; w h e t h e r cited directly b y Josephus or through intermediary source, 2 7 3 ; avoiding direct quotations of, 164; r a n k e d as first t o m a l i g n J e w s , 1 7 8 - 1 7 9 ; object of m u c h of J o s e p h u s ' a t t e n t i o n , 166; C A i n t e n d e d t o d e b a t e w i t h followers of i n R o m a n society, 1 5 1 ; J o s e p h u s ' insults of, 162-163; compared by Josephus w i t h ass, 3 0 6 - 3 0 7 ; r h e t o r i c a l skill of, 174 n . 154; b e g i n n i n g of refutation

of in C A 2 . 5 , 2 9 8 n. 113; c h a r g e of J e w i s h lack of e m i n e n t p e o p l e , 125; derisive versions of expulsion from E g y p t , 136; libel of J e w i s h v e n e r a t i o n of t h e ass, 2 8 5 - 2 8 9 , 3 0 4 , 3 1 0 ; libel of lack of J e w i s h inventiveness, 3 5 0 - 3 5 1 ; derision of J e w i s h food laws a n d circumcision, 3 5 9 ; i n d i r e c t c o n f i r m a t i o n of p u r p o s e s of s a b b a t h , 2 6 0 n. 17; a c c o r d i n g t o E u s e b i u s , 2 5 3 - 2 5 4 n. 10. B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 3 (Arazy), 2 6 (Cohn), 27 (Daniel), 2 8 (Drew), 2 8 - 2 9 (Fau), 3 3 ( J a c o b s o n ) , 3 6 (Levy), 41 ( R o k e a h ) , 4 2 (Schalk), 4 3 (Sperling), 4 5 ( T h e o d o r i d i s ) , 4 7 ( W e l l m a n n ) , 47 (Willrich) Apologetics defined, 1 4 4 - 1 5 0 , 1 5 1 , 3 6 9 - 3 7 0 ; a n d C A , 115 n. 1; a n d Antiquities, 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 ; according to Eusebius, 3 8 5 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 27 (Daniel), 29 ( F e l d m a n ) , 30 (Georgi), 37 (Matthews) Bellum Judaicum a n c i e n t titles of, 76; in relation to Jewish canon, 103-105, 107-109. B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 (Broshi) Canon, Jewish a n d h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in C A , 9 9 - 1 0 3 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 3 (Albrektson), 2 3 (Anderson), 2 4 (Barton), 2 4 (Beckwith), 2 5 (Buhl), 2 6 (Christensen), 2 6 - 2 7 (Collins), 27 (Cornill), 2 8 ( E i c h h o r n ) , 2 8 (Eissfeldt), 2 9 (Fell), 30 (Gerber), 31 (Gray), 31 ( G r e e n b e r g ) , 34 (Katz), 3 5 ( K o c h ) , 3 6 ( L e b r a m ) , 3 6 (Leiman), 3 6 (Leipoldt), 37 (Lindblom), 3 8 ( M e y e r , R.), 39 (Movers), 3 9 (Pedersen), 41 (Ryle), 4 2 (Schoedel), 4 3 (Segal), 4 3 (Siegel), 4 3 (Smith, W.), 4 4 (Sundberg), 4 5 ( T r u b l e t ) , 4 5 (van U n n i k ) , 4 7 (Westcott), 4 8 (Zeitlin) Christianity influence of C A o n , 5 0 - 5 1 ; C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a , 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 ;

SUBJECT INDEX

Pseudo-Justin, 3 7 8 - 3 8 0 , 3 9 9 - 4 0 0 ; Origen, 380-382, 401-402; Tertullian, 3 8 2 - 3 8 4 , 398, 402; Eusebius, 49, 3 8 4 - 3 9 6 , 3 9 8 - 4 0 0 ; 4 0 2 ; T h e o p h i l u s of A n t i o c h , 3 7 1 - 3 7 8 , 3 9 8 , 4 0 1 ; failure t o p r e s e r v e anti-Jewish writings, 2 5 1 . Bibliography, 29 (Feldman), 32 (Hardwick) Circumcision H e r o d o t u s ' reference to S y r i a n s of Palestine w h o c i r c u m c i s e p r o b a b l y n o t a reference t o J e w s , 123; n o n - J e w i s h derision of, 3 5 9 - 3 6 2 . Bibliography, 4 3 (Smith, J.) C A , a n c i e n t titles of, 4 9 , 7 5 - 7 6 , 77 C A , a n d C h r i s t i a n i t y . See C h r i s t i a n i t y C A , libels in. See Libels C A , literary style G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y of, 8 3 - 9 3 ; G r e e k vocabulary c o m p a r e d to Jewish W a r a n d Antiquities, 8 3 - 8 5 , t e c h n i q u e of self-praise, 157; t e c h n i q u e of emphasizing Josephus' involvement in R o m a n society, 158; giving t h e i m p r e s s i o n of a n e d u c a t i o n m a n , 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 ; t e c h n i q u e of d e v e l o p i n g intimacy with readers by flattery, 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 ; t e c h n i q u e of giving incentives a n d intellectual stimulus for l e a r n i n g , 160; t e c h n i q u e of involving r e a d e r s in w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 ; t e c h n i q u e of insulting J e w h a t e r s , 1 6 1 - 1 6 3 ; brevity a n d concision, 164; use of e x t e r n a l historical sources, 165; use of first-person, 165; use of a x i o m s that require n o evidence, 166-167; use of logical f o r m u l a s , 167; c r e a t i n g structured, balanced comparison, 1 6 7 - 1 6 9 ; use of m o d e l of legal d e b a t e , 1 7 0 - 1 7 1 ; use of dialectic a n d syllogism, 172; use of r h e t o r i c a n d rhetorical questions, 172-176; use of r a n k i n g system, 1 7 6 - 1 8 1 ; m e t h o d s of citation, 1 8 1 - 1 8 3 ; a c c u r a c y of c h r o n o l o g i c a l detail, 1 8 3 - 1 8 4 ; use of c u m u l a t i v e effect, 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 ; m e t h o d of s u m m a r i z i n g , 185; use of e x a m p l e s , 2 9 9 ; use of e n t h y m e m e s , 2 9 9 ; t e c h n i q u e s of refutation, 3 0 0 - 3 0 8 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 3 (Attridge), 2 5 (Bilde), 30 (Gauger), 30 (Geffcken),

439

31 ( G o o d e ) , 31 ( G r e e n s p o o n ) , 35 (Kriiger), 4 6 (Villalba i V a r n e d a ) . See also R h e t o r i c ; H i s t o r i o g r a p h y C A , m y t h o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n s in criteria for isolation of, 1 0 - 1 2 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 - 2 9 5 ; J o s e p h u s ' r e f u t a t i o n of, 272, 2 9 5 - 3 0 8 . See S e t h - T y p h o n C A , o u d i n e of, 2 - 5 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 C A , p r o - J e w i s h i n t i m a t i o n s in anti-Jewish libels, 2 5 2 - 2 7 0 Jewish antiquity, 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 ; s t u b b o r n n e s s of t h e J e w s , 2 5 3 - 2 5 4 ; Jewish intolerance, 2 5 5 - 2 5 8 ; the a s s - h e a d libel, 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 ; lack of J e w i s h i n v e n t i v e n e s s , 2 5 9 ; virtues of t h e J e w s (e.g., c o u r a g e ) , 2 5 9 - 2 6 2 ; A p i o n ' s i n d i r e c t c o n f i r m a t i o n of p u r p o s e s of s a b b a t h , 2 6 0 n . 17; C l e o p a t r a ' s m i s t r e a t m e n t of t h e J e w s a n d R o m a n d i s d a i n for h e r , 2 6 2 - 2 6 3 ; A p i o n ' s anti-Jewish c h a r g e s a n d his n e g a t i v e r h e t o r i c a l r e p u t a t i o n , 2 6 3 - 2 6 5 ; A p i o n as E g y p t i a n a n d n e g a t i v e v i e w of E g y p t i a n s , 2 6 6 - 2 6 7 . S e e Libels C A , p u r p o s e of lack of scholarly c o n s e n s u s , 1 9 - 2 0 ; t o a d d r e s s t h e conflict b e t w e e n Greek a n d Jewish historiography, 98, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 150; t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e a n t i q u i t y of J u d a i s m , 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 ; t o a r o u s e s y m p a t h y for J u d a i s m a n d t o refute libels, 1 5 0 - 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 ; n o t forensic r h e t o r i c , 2 1 6 ; t o invite adherence to the Jewish philosophy (as logos protreptikos), 1 7 - 1 9 , 2 2 2 - 2 2 4 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 (Bilde), 2 9 (Frankl), 31 ( G o o d e ) , 31 ( G r a e t z ) , 3 9 (Petersen), 4 2 ( S c h u r e r ) , 4 4 (Sterling), 44 (Tcherikover). See Rhetoric; Historiography C A , r e a d e r s of libelers of J e w s , 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 ; t h o s e w h o a c c e p t e d libelers' o p i n i o n s , 1 5 1 - 1 5 3 ; those w h o sought to b r o a d e n their e d u c a t i o n , 1 5 3 ; t h o s e i g n o r a n t of J e w s a n d J u d a i s m , 1 5 3 ; J e w s in R o m a n administration, 155-156; J e w s in t h e D i a s p o r a w i t h a hellenistic e d u c a t i o n , 156; g o v e r n m e n t a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e R o m a n officials, 156; t h o s e w i t h a b e n e v o l e n t disposition t o w a r d J u d a i s m , 2 1 2 - 2 1 6 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 (Bilde)

440

SUBJECT INDEX

C A , r e l a t i o n of t o A n t i q u i t i e s . See Antiquities C A , r h e t o r i c of. S e e R h e t o r i c C A , s o u r c e s of in g e n e r a l , 9 - 1 5 ; listed, 5 5 - 6 0 ; G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y of s o u r c e s cited in C A , 8 6 - 9 3 ; cited as e v i d e n c e of r e c e n t origins of G r e e c e , 1 1 9 - 1 2 3 ; cited as e v i d e n c e of t h e a n t i q u i t y of the Jews, 123-137; Josephus' revision of t h e H e c a t a e a n v e r s i o n of t h e e x p u l s i o n from E g y p t , 1 3 7 - 1 4 1 ; J o s e p h u s ' m e t h o d s of c i t a t i o n , 1 8 1 - 1 8 3 ; use of m e t h o d s of historical i n q u i r y t o refute anti-Jewish versions, 2 4 0 - 2 4 8 ; m y t h o l o g y a n d J o s e p h u s ' refutation, 1 0 - 1 2 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 - 3 0 8 ; traditio-critical analysis of ass libels, 3 1 0 - 3 2 6 ; s o u r c e s in c o m m o n w i t h A n t . , 3 5 1 - 3 6 2 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 4 (Belkin), 2 6 ( C a r r a s ) , 2 6 (Collins), 27 ( C o l l o m p ) , 27 (Cruice), 3 0 (Georgi), 31 ( G o l d e n b e r g ) , 31 ( G o o d e ) , 3 2 (Hay), 3 5 (Klein), 3 5 (Kopidakis), 3 6 ( L a q u e u r ) , 3 6 (Levy), 37 ( M e n a r d ) , 38 (Momigliano), 39 (Motzo), 39 ( N a z z a r o ) , 4 1 (Rosen), 4 1 ( S a n d m e l ) , 4 2 - 4 3 ( S c h w a r t z , S.), 4 5 (Troiani), 4 6 (Walter), 4 7 ( W e n d l a n d ) . See also I n d e x of A n c i e n t N a m e s C A , t e x t u a l h i s t o r y of in g e n e r a l , 6 - 7 , 7 8 - 7 9 ; G r e e k manuscripts, 6 2 - 6 3 ; Editio princeps of G r e e k , 6 3 - 6 4 ; L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n , 6 4 - 6 5 ; c i t a t i o n s of, b o r r o w i n g s f r o m , a n d allusions, t o , 6 5 - 7 2 ; s c h o l a r s h i p o n L a t i n m a n u s c r i p t s , 72—73; scholarship on Greek manuscripts, 7 3 - 7 4 ; recent translations a n d c o m m e n t a r i e s , 7 4 - 7 5 ; i m p o r t a n c e of Eusebius, 78. Bibliography, 26 ( C a t a u d e l l a ) , 3 0 ( G i a g r a n d e ) , 31 (Goode), 34 ( J a n n e ) , 35 (Kontos), 37 ( L u n d s t r o m ) , 3 9 (Niese), 4 0 (Puech), 4 1 ( R e i n a c h ) , 4 1 ( R e i n a c h a n d B l u m ) , 41 (dos S a n t o s ) , 4 5 (Thackeray), 45 (Troiani), 46 (Vellas), 4 8 (Zipser). S e e C h r i s t i a n i t y Conversion 2 0 1 - 2 0 7 ; at Adiabene, 18-19, 2 0 5 - 2 0 7 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 . Bibliography, 36 (Kuhn) Egypt a n d Egyptians p r e v a l e n c e of m y t h of H o r u s vs.

S e t h - T y p h o n c u r r e n t , 10; original v e r s i o n of ass-libel, 1 2 - 1 3 , 3 1 8 - 3 2 5 ; p r o v e n a n c e of anti-Jewish libels, 2 7 3 - 3 0 9 ; a n t i q u i t y , 14, 2 5 2 - 2 5 3 ; l o w v i e w of h e l d b y R o m a n s , 15; t a u g h t t h e sciences b y A b r a h a m a c c o r d i n g t o Ant., 2 0 0 ; a n t i p a t h y toward J u d a i s m , 242; negative c h a r a c t e r , 2 5 5 - 2 5 7 ; a n anti-Jewish Egyptian prophecy, 282-283. B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 (Biidinger) G r e e k culture a n d literature r e c e n t origins, 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 ; c o n t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e of J e w i s h a n t i q u i t y , 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 ; b o r r o w i n g from J e w s , 1 2 6 - 1 2 8 ; disciples of E g y p t i a n s a n d Babylonians, according to Hecataeus, 133; inferiority, a c c o r d i n g t o T h e o p h i l u s of A n t i o c h , 3 7 3 . See Historiography, Greek Greek language literary style of C A , 7 - 8 , 5 2 - 5 4 ; spelling of in J o s e p h u s ' writings, 5 2 - 5 4 ; u s e of assistants to w r i t e Bellum Judaicum, 3 4 9 Hasmoneans. 201-207 Hebrew t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n b y J o s e p h u s of letters, 5 4 Historiography, Greek J o s e p h u s ' critique, 9 8 - 9 9 ; historiographers defamed by J o s e p h u s , 157; neglect of official r e c o r d s , 8, 176; inferiority in comparison with Jewish, 9 8 - 1 0 1 , 104, 150, 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 ; inferiority in comparison with Oriental, 121-123, 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 , 210. Bibliography, 26 (Cohen) Historiography, Jewish priests as a u t h o r s of J e w i s h c a n o n , 9 6 - 9 7 ; p r o p h e t s as a u t h o r s of J e w i s h c a n o n , 9 9 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , 105; as e x a m p l e of " O r i e n t a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , 9 8 - 9 9 ; superiority in comparison with Greek, 9 8 - 1 0 1 , 104, 150, 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 31 ( G r a b b e ) Historiography, and Josephus J o s e p h u s ' qualifications as p r o p h e t , 95-96, 105-107; Josephus' qualification as priest, 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 , 107; J o s e p h u s qualification as eyewitness, 100, 1 0 4 - 1 0 6 ;

SUBJECT INDEX

J o s e p h u s ' writings as J e w i s h c a n o n , 103-105, 107-109. Bibliography, 25 ( B i c k e r m a n n ) , 35 (Krieger), 37 (Linton), 37 ( M a l a m a t ) , 37 ( M é n a r d ) , 4 6 (Vogelstein) Historiography, Oriental P h o e n i c i a n a r c h i v e s , 122; s u p e r i o r i t y in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h G r e e k , 1 2 1 - 1 2 3 , 168-169, 210. Bibliography, 29 ( F r e e d m a n ) , 2 9 ( F r e u n d ) , 30 (Garbini), 31 ( G r e e n ) , 3 3 (Hyatt), 37 (Lipinski), 37 (Liver), 37 ( M a z z a ) , 39 (Penuela), 41 (Ruhl), 4 5 (Thiele), 4 6 ( V a n Seters), 4 6 (Vogt), 48 (Wiseman) Historiography, techniques employed in C A , 1 5 - 1 7 as i n s t r u m e n t of d i s p u t a t i o n w i t h n o n - J e w s , 5 0 , m e t h o d of d e r i v e d from R o m a n r h e t o r i c a l h a n d b o o k s , 1 6 - 1 7 ; m e t h o d in R o m a n r h e t o r i c i a n s , 2 3 1 - 2 3 5 ; identification of historical a n d r h e t o r i c a l t r a i n i n g , 231-232; rhetoricians equate truth in history w i t h plausible n a r r a t i o n , 2 3 3 - 2 3 4 ; use of plausible n a r r a t i o n , 16-17, 233-234, 235-238, 242-246; use of topics t o c r e a t e a plausible n a r r a t i v e , 16, 2 3 6 - 2 3 8 ; credibility of t e s t i m o n y 16, 2 3 8 - 2 4 0 ; use of t e s t i m o n y t o discredit critics, 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 ; use of topics t o discover inconsistencies of critics, 2 4 6 - 2 4 8 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 - 2 6 (Cancik), 2 6 ( C o h e n ) , 2 9 (Finegan). S e e R h e t o r i c Hyksos identification w i t h J e w s in M a n e t h o ' s a c c o u n t , 14, 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 , 122 n . 14, 134, 2 7 5 - 2 7 9 , 2 7 5 n . 10, 2 7 6 n . 1 1 , 308, 323 n. 4 1 . Bibliography, 23 (Allgeier), 2 3 (Alt), 2 4 (Bérard), 2 8 (Engberg), 32 (Helck), 3 3 (Jablônski), 35 (Kempinski), 3 6 (Labib), 3 6 (Leibovitch), 3 8 ( M e y e r , E.), 3 9 (Nesde), 4 0 (Redford), 4 6 ( V a n Seters), 4 7 - 4 8 (Wilson, J . ) . See Libels, E x p u l s i o n from E g y p t Idolatry, 148-149 Jerusalem p o r t r a y e d in C A as if 70 C E h a d n o t t a k e n p l a c e , 5 1 , 5 1 - 5 2 n. 15; T a c i t u s ' d e p i c t i o n of incorrigible n o n - J e w s w h o s e n d t o t r i b u t e t o , 18, 189; M o s e s as f o u n d e r a c c o r d i n g t o Hecataeus, 131; Hyksos, with Moses

441

as l e a d e r , as f o u n d e r s of a c c o r d i n g t o M a n e t h o , 2 7 6 , 2 8 0 - 2 8 1 n. 3 2 J e w i s h W a r . S e e Bellum Judaicum. Josephus wives of, 6 7 ; self-assessment of, 2 0 , 9 4 - 9 7 ; his identification w i t h J e r e m i a h , 9 4 - 9 5 ; his identification w i t h D a n i e l , 9 5 - 9 6 ; self-assessment as p r o p h e t , 9 5 - 9 7 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 7 ; self-assessment as priest, 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 , 157 n . 6 4 Judaism, attraction to 1 4 - 1 5 , 18; J u d a i s m as a m i s s i o n a r y religion, 187; literary e v i d e n c e , 188-190; according to Epictetus, 189; a c c o r d i n g t o T a c i t u s , 189; a c c o r d i n g to J u v e n a l , 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 ; a c c o r d i n g t o H o r a c e , 190; a c c o r d i n g t o C e l s u s , 190; a c c o r d i n g t o S e n e c a , 190; a m o n g R o m a n i n d i v i d u a l s , 1 9 0 - 1 9 2 ; e v i d e n t in R o m a n legislation, 1 9 2 - 1 9 3 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 5 (Bialoblocki), 2 6 ( C o h e n ) , 28 (Downing), 29 (Feldman), 31 (Graetz), 3 2 ( G u t t m a n n ) , 33 (Jacobson), 41 (Rosenbloom), 4 3 (Sevenster), 4 4 ( T c h e r i k o v e r ) , 4 8 (Zeitiin). S e e C o n v e r s i o n ; C A , p r o - J e w i s h i n t i m a t i o n s in anti-Jewish libels J u d a i s m , aversion to 1 9 3 - 1 9 5 . See Libels Latin J o s e p h u s ' k n o w l e d g e of, 5 2 ~ 5 3 ; r e t r o v e r s i o n of L a t i n p o r t i o n of C A into H e b r e w , 9 n. 3. Bibliography, 4 3 (Shutt) L a w s , laws of M o s e s . S e e T o r a h Libels, ass (head) in t h e t e m p l e 3 1 0 - 3 2 6 ; 2 8 4 - 2 8 8 ; t h r e e versions, t h e i r history a n d d e v e l o p m e n t , 3 1 0 - 3 2 6 ; s u m m a r y of t h r e e v e r s i o n s , 3 2 5 - 3 2 6 ; ass-head, 257, 310, 317, 3 5 5 ; s t a t u e of a n ass, 12, 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 - 3 1 6 ; t h e s t a t u e of a n ass, E g y p t i a n origin, 3 1 4 - 3 1 6 ; s t a t u e of M o s e s o n a n ass, 3 1 0 ; s t a t u e o f M o s e s o n ass, E g y p t i a n o r i g i n , 3 1 4 ; M o s e s o n a n ass, a n d S e t h - T y p h o n t r a d i t i o n s , 3 1 9 - 3 2 5 ; t h e stolen ass, a c c o r d i n g t o M n a s e a s of P a t a r a , 2 8 6 - 2 8 7 ; r e l a t i o n of ass libels t o libels c o n c e r n i n g e x p u l s i o n from E g y p t , 2 8 4 - 2 8 8 ; relation to S e t h - T y p h o n , 2 8 7 - 2 8 8 ; Posidonius' version,

442

SUBJECT INDEX

3 1 2 - 3 1 3 ; significance o f Z e c h a r i a h 9 : 9 for u n d e r s t a n d i n g , 3 1 8 n . 2 1 ; significance o f L X X for r e c o n s t r u c t i n g , 3 1 6 - 3 1 7 ; J o s e p h u s ' refutation b y c o m p a r i n g A p i o n w i t h ass, 3 0 6 - 3 0 7 ; J o s e p h u s ' critique, 3 0 4 . Bibliography, 2 5 ( B i c k e r m a n n ) , 2 5 (Buchler), 3 1 ( G o r m a n ) , 3 1 ( G r a e t z ) , 3 2 (Halevy), 3 3 ( J a c o b y , A . ) , 4 4 (Speyer), 4 4 (Strieker), 4 6 (Vischer) Libels, e x p u l s i o n f r o m E g y p t various versions, 1 3 4 - 1 3 7 ; J e w s as lepers, 8 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 n . 4 3 , 1 7 8 , 2 7 7 - 2 7 9 , 2 7 7 n . 1 9 ; l e p e r libel a n d A n t i q u i t i e s , 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 ; E g y p t i a n origin of J e w s , 2 1 1 , 2 7 3 - 2 8 4 ,

294-295;

J o s e p h u s ' refutation o f libels c o n c e r n i n g E g y p t i a n origin of J e w s , 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 ; J e w s a s seditious E g y p t i a n s a c c o r d i n g t o O r i g e n , 3 8 1 ; flight from Egypt o n ass, according to P l u t a r c h , 2 8 8 - 2 8 9 ; r e l a t i o n t o libels of ass v e n e r a t i o n i n t h e t e m p l e , 2 8 4 - 2 8 8 ; J o s e p h u s ' refutation o f M a n e t h o ' s v e r s i o n o f l e p e r libel, 3 0 4 - 3 0 6 ; J o s e p h u s ' refutation o f C h a e r e m o n ' s v e r s i o n o f l e p e r libel, 3 0 6 ; J o s e p h u s discredits plausibility of n a r r a t i v e , 2 4 3 - 2 4 5 ; J o s e p h u s discredits m o t i v e , c h a r a c t e r , a n d actions of narrative, 2 4 6 - 2 4 8 ; A p i o n ' s k n o w l e d g e of biblical a c c o u n t of e x o d u s , 1 3 7 n . 4 7 ; a n anti-Jewish Egyptian prophecy, 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 3 (Aziza), 2 7 ( C o l l o m p ) , 2 7 (Davies), 2 7 (Day), 2 8 ( E c k h a r d u s ) , 3 1 ( G r e s s m a n n ) , 3 4 ( J e r e m i a s , A.), 3 4 (Kasher), 3 5 (Konigsmann), 3 6 (Levy), 3 8 ( M o n t e t ) Libels, a n n u a l sacrifice o f a gentile i n the temple, 3 2 8 , 3 5 5 Bibliography, 4 4 (Tcherikover) Libels, a n t i - J e w i s h , m i s c e l l a n e o u s in g e n e r a l , 1 4 - 1 5 , 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 5 5 ; lack of i n v e n t i v e n e s s , 1 5 , 1 2 7 , 1 5 5 , 3 5 0 - 3 5 1 ; lack o f i n v e n t i v e n e s s i n O r i g e n , 3 8 1 - 3 8 2 ; lack o f inventiveness in Eusebius a n d C A , 3 8 8 ; stubbornness, 1 4 ; intolerance, 1 4 - 1 5 ; lack o f c o n t r i b u t i o n t o civilization, 3 5 3 - 3 5 5 ; a t h e i s m , 355-356;

misanthropy,

356-359;

d e r i s i o n of J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s (circumcision, s a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e , a n d a b s t i n e n c e from c e r t a i n foods),

3 5 9 - 3 6 2 ; c o m p a r i s o n o f GA w i t h A n t i q u i t i e s , 2CH-21 ; J o s e p h u s ' praise of rivals, 1 4 9 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 2 (Abel), 2 3 (Adriani), 2 3 (Arazy), 2 7 - 2 8 ( D e L a n g e ) , 2 8 (Farré), 2 9 ( F e l d m a n ) , 2 9 (Fraser), 3 1 ( G u t m a n ) , 3 2 (Halévy), 3 4 ( K a h n - J a s h a r ) , 3 7 (Marcus), 3 8 (Modrzejewski), 4 0 (Poliakov), 4 0 (Pond), 4 0 ( R a d i n ) , 4 3 (Sevenster), 4 3 (Smith, M . ) , 4 4 (Stern), 4 8 (Wilson, R . ) , 4 8 (Yoyotte). S e e C A , pro-Jewish i n t i m a t i o n s i n anti-Jewish libels M o s e s , i n relation t o G r e e k philosophers, 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 t h e s o u r c e o f civilization, 1 4 0 ; antiquity of according to Josephus, 1 9 , 3 7 0 n. 2 ; n o t b e c o m i n g leprous, as i n E x o d 4 : 6 , 3 5 3 ; o n h i g h - c o u r t a p p e a l s , 3 6 3 ; d e a t h of, 1 0 2 ; e m i n e n t Jewish hero, 3 5 4 - 3 5 5 ; in Hecataeus' v e r s i o n , 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 ; r e s e m b l a n c e in C A t o H e c a t a e a n version, 1 3 7 - 1 4 0 ; in n o n - J e w i s h writings, 2 5 1 - 2 5 2 ; h e l l e n i z e d version in C A , 1 9 , 1 2 7 - 1 2 8 ; hellenized portrait in Eusebius a n d C A , 3 9 9 ; leadership in anti-Jewish a c c o u n t s , 2 7 8 n . 2 4 ; identified a s O s a r s i p h , a priest o f Heliopolis, b y M a n e t h o , 2 7 8 - 2 7 9 ; identified w i t h T y p h o n , 3 2 0 - 3 2 2 ; the supreme lawmaker in Eusebius and CA, 3 8 6 , 3 8 8 , 3 9 9 ; the s u p r e m e wise p e r s o n in E u s e b i u s a n d C A , 3 8 8 - 3 8 9 ; a n t i q u i t y o f in Pseudo-Justin a n d C A , 3 7 9 - 3 8 0 ; s t a t u e o f M o s e s o n a n ass i n t e m p l e , 1 2 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 , 3 1 9 - 3 2 5 statue o f M o s e s o n ass, E g y p t i a n origin, 3 1 4 ; M o s e s o n a n ass, a n d S e t h - T y p h o n traditions, 3 1 9 - 3 2 5 . Bibliography, 3 0 (Gager), 3 2 ( H e i n e m a n n ) , 4 1 (von S a r g a n s ) , 4 3 (Silver). S e e T h e o c r a c y ; Torah P o l e m i c s , defined, 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 , 1 5 1 B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 3 (Attridge) Priests a n d P r i e s t h o o d , J e w i s h in r e l a t i o n t o p r o p h e c y , 9 7 ; a s a u t h o r s of J e w i s h c a n o n , 2 0 - 2 1 , 9 9 , 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 ; shifts in t e m p l e , 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 ; courses of duty in temple, 3 3 9 - 3 4 7 ; c o u r s e s i n t e m p l e , possible origins i n post-exilic p e r i o d , 3 4 3 - 3 4 4 ; J o s e p h u s ' h o p e for r e s t o r a t i o n o f

SUBJECT INDEX

priestly cult of in t e m p l e , 51 ; J o s e p h u s as priest a n d c o n c o m i t a n t qualifications as h i s t o r i a n , 2 0 - 2 1 , 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 , 157 n . 6 4 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 4 5 ( U r b a c h ) . See Temple Priests, n o n - J e w i s h E g y p t i a n , 1 0 1 ; B a b y l o n i a n , 101 Prophets and Prophecy in relation to p r i e s t h o o d , 9 7 ; as a u t h o r s of J e w i s h c a n o n , 2 0 , 9 9 , 101-103; prophecy during the G r e c o - R o m a n era according to J o s e p h u s , 9 6 n. 14; J o s e p h u s ' identification w i t h biblical p r o p h e t s , 9 4 - 9 6 ; J o s e p h u s as p r o p h e t , 9 5 - 9 6 , 104-105, 106-107. Bibliography, 2 4 (Barton), 31 (Gray) Rhetoric and C A in C A , 8, 1 5 - 1 9 ; epideictic, 17, 2 9 6 - 2 9 7 ; epideictic a n d use of e x a m p l e s , 2 9 9 ; forensic, 17, 2 9 7 ; forensic a n d use of e n t h y m e m e s , 2 9 9 ; C A n o t forensic, 2 1 6 ; r e l a t i o n of epideictic to forensic, 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 ; a n d Aristode on rhetoric, 2 9 6 - 3 0 9 ; C A as logos protreptikos, 1 7 - 1 8 , 2 2 2 ; definition of logos protreptikos, 2 1 7 - 2 1 9 ; e x a m p l e s of logoi protreptikoi, 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 ; L u c i a n , Wisdom of Nigrinus as logos protreptikos, 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 ; E p i s d e to D i o g n e t u s , as logos protreptikos, 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 ; C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a , Protreptikos as logos protreptikos, 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 ; t e c h n i q u e s of refutation, 3 0 0 - 3 0 8 ; stasis t h e o r y a n d plausible n a r r a t i o n , 2 3 3 - 2 3 5 ; criticism of t e s t i m o n y t o credit o r discredit witnesses, 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 ; use of topics to discover inconsistencies of critics, 2 4 6 - 2 4 8 ; criticism of plausibility of n a r r a t i v e to r e b u t critics, 2 4 2 - 2 4 6 ; r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s in, 1 7 2 - 1 7 6 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 3 (Attridge), 24 (Balch), 32 ( H a h n ) , 32 (Hay), 3 8 ( M o m i g l i a n o ) , 4 0 (Pilhofer). S e e also H i s t o r i o g r a p h y a n d C A , literary t e c h n i q u e s in Rome J e w s , 18; G r e e k a n d L a t i n of J e w s , 52-53 Sabbath criticism of, 8 9 n. 3 3 ; J e w s ' refusal to fight, 2 5 4 , 3 5 9 - 3 6 0 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 3 3 (Jablônski), 4 2 (Scheller)

443

Seth-Typhon mythology a n d Potter's Oracle, 284, 2 9 1 ; i n v o l v e m e n t of S e t h - T y p h o n in political e v e n t s , 2 9 0 - 2 9 2 ; r e l a t i o n t o anti-Jewish libels, 2 7 5 - 2 9 5 ; r e l a t i o n t o ass libels, 10, 3 1 8 - 3 2 5 ; killing of S e t h d e p i c t e d o n t e m p l e walls, 2 9 0 ( a n d n . 69). S e e Libels, ass (head) in the temple Temple in g e n e r a l , 2 1 , 5 1 , 1 3 1 , 3 2 7 - 3 4 7 , 3 5 5 ; J o s e p h u s ' h o p e for r e s t o r a t i o n of p r i e s d y cult in t e m p l e , 51 ; c o u r t s a n d t h e i r restrictions in C A , 3 2 8 - 3 3 4 ; p r i e s d y shifts in C A , 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 ; objects in C A , 3 3 5 - 3 3 9 ; p r i e s d y c o u r s e s of d u t y in C A , 3 3 9 - 3 4 7 ; a n t i q u i t y of S o l o m o n ' s t e m p l e in T h e o p h i l u s of A n t i o c h a n d C A , 3 7 4 ; in E u s e b i u s a n d C A , 3 8 9 ; sacrifice for t h e e m p e r o r , 3 4 7 ; S o l o m o n ' s p r a y e r a t d e d i c a t i o n in A n t i q u i t i e s , 3 5 9 ; d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e t e m p l e in C A c o m p a r e d w i t h M i s h n a h , 3 3 0 ; restrictions concerning w h o m a y enter courts in C A conflicts w i t h M i s h n a h , 2 1 , 3 3 1 - 3 3 4 ; p r i e s d y shifts in C A c o m p a r e d with M i s h n a h , 3 3 4 - 3 3 5 ; d e s c r i p t i o n of objects in t e m p l e in C A c o m p a r e d with Mishnah, 3 3 7 - 3 3 9 ; p r i e s d y c o u r s e s in C A confirms M i s h n a h , 3 3 9 - 3 4 0 ; J o s e p h u s ' description c o m p a r e d with M a r k ' s gospel, 3 3 8 - 3 3 9 . B i b l i o g r a p h y , 2 6 (Clark), 2 8 (Derrett), 34 (Jeremias, J.), 35 ( K a t z e n s t e i n ) , 4 1 ( R o w t o n ) . See Libel, ass (head) in t h e t e m p l e ; Libel, a n n u a l sacrifice of a gentile in the temple Theocracy 14, 2 1 , 5 0 , 5 4 , 2 1 2 ; G r e e k v o c a b u l a r y for, 8 9 , 8 9 n . 2 9 ; established by according to H e c a t a e u s a n d J o s e p h u s , 14; s u p e r i o r i t y of J e w i s h t o G r e e k , 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 ; r e l a t i o n of J o s e p h u s ' version to H e c a t a e u s ' version, 1 3 7 - 1 3 9 ; development from Ant. to C A , 3 6 2 - 3 6 6 ; M o s e s as f o u n d e r a c c o r d i n g t o M a n e t h o , 2 7 9 ; in Eusebius a n d C A , 388. Bibliography, 2 3 (Amir), 2 4 (Balch), 2 4 (Belkin), 2 6 (Cancik), 35 ( K a u t z s c h ) , 37

444

SUBJECT INDEX

(Lind), 4 2 (Schaublin), 4 5 ( T o s a t o ) , 4 5 (Treves) T o r a h ( J e w i s h laws, laws of Moses) 8 5 , 148; p r e s e n t e d in G A t o invite adherence to, 2 1 2 - 2 1 6 ; most ancient l a w c o d e a n d diffuser of civilization, 129; a g r e e w i t h t h e best of G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s , 2 1 4 ; strict a d h e r e n c e c o m p a r e d with Athens a n d Sparta, 215; b o r r o w e d b y other cultures, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 ; J e w s c o m p a r e d with Spartans, 254; c o m p a r e d with P l a t o ' s laws, 3 0 2 ; c o m p a r e d w i t h L a c e d a e m o n i a n laws, 3 0 2 ; o n aliens, 2 1 3 , 3 5 7 ; o n leprosy, 3 0 2 , 3 5 2 ; r e g u l a t i o n s a p p l i e d t o restriction of access t o t e m p l e , 3 3 0 - 3 3 4 ; laws

r e l a t e d t o t e m p l e offerings a n d sacrifice, 3 4 0 - 3 4 1 ; p r o h i b i t i n g w o r s h i p of o t h e r g o d s , 3 5 6 ; laws c o n s t i t u t e refutation of J e w s as b a r b a r i a n s , 3 5 3 - 3 5 4 ; in E u s e b i u s a n d C A , 3 8 7 - 3 9 0 . Bibliography, 24 (Balch), 2 4 (Belkin), 2 6 (Carras), 2 6 (Collins), 27 (Colson), 27 ( C r o u c h ) , 27 ( D a u b e ) , 31 ( G o l d e n b e r g ) , 3 3 ( H o m m e l ) , 3 3 (van d e r H o r s t ) , 3 3 ( J a c k s o n ) , 3 5 - 3 6 (Küchler), 3 9 (Oesterley), 41 (Revel), 41 (Riskin), 4 5 ( T e r r i a n ) , 4 6 (Vermes), 4 6 (Viviano), 4 6 ( W a c h o l d e r ) , 4 6 (Wallach), 4 8 (Zeitlin) V i t a , a n c i e n t tide of, 7 6 - 7 7 Vulgate, 6 9 - 7 0

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Abel, E.L. 22 A b r a h a m s , I. 23 Abusch, R. 10, 17 Achtemeier, P J . 3 1 , 2 9 5 n . 100 A d l e r , A. 61 Adler, E.N. 23 Adriani, M . 23 A l b r e k t s o n , B. 23 Allgeier, A . 23 Alt, A. 23 A l t e n m ü l l e r , B. 2 9 0 n. 6 9 Altshuler, D . 3 6 0 - 3 6 1 n. 2 8 , 3 6 7 Amaru, B.H. 198, 2 2 4 , 361 n. 2 9 , 367 A m i r , Y. 2 3 , 8 9 n . 2 9 , 3 6 3 n . 3 3 , 367 Anderson, G.W. 23 Aptowitzer, V. 23 A r a z y , A. 23 A r n o l d , D . 2 7 6 n. 14 Attridge, H . W . 2 3 , 9 4 n. 2, 9 6 n . 15, 112, 1 9 7 - 1 9 8 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 5 n. 4 , 2 2 4 , 2 2 9 n. 1, 231 n . 9, 361 n. 2 9 , 3 6 7 A u n e , D . E . 9 5 n . 10, 9 6 n. 14, 107 n. 4 1 , 142 Aziza, C . 2 3 , 67 n. 3 7 , 7 9 , 2 7 5 n. 8 B a b b i t t , F . C . 321 n. 3 4 Balch, D . L . 2 4 , 2 2 9 n . 1, 2 9 6 n. 103 B a i s d o n , J . P . V . 261 n. 18, 2 6 7 n . 2 6 Bakes, M . 58, 80 B a m b e r g e r , B.J. 187, 2 2 4 B a r - K o c h v a , B. 1 2 - 1 3 , 2 5 7 n . 12, 3 1 0 , 3 1 3 n. 70, 3 1 4 n. 12, 3 1 7 n. 2 0 , 3 2 0 n. 3 0 , 3 2 3 n n . 4 2 - 4 3 Barta, W . 2 9 0 n. 6 9 Barüett, J . R . 24 Barton, J . 24 Basser, H . 2 4 9 n. 2 6 Bauckham, R. 2 1 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 9 n . 14 Bauernfeind, O . 80 B e c h e r , I. 2 6 3 n. 2 0 Becking, B. 2 7 2 n . 2 Beckwith, R . T . 2 4 , 9 6 n . 13, 101 n. 2 5 , 103 n. 3 0 , 112 Begg, C . T . 9 5 n. 5 , n. 9, 112, 2 0 0 , 224 Bekker, I. 6 4 , 73

Belkin, S. 2 4 , 2 7 3 n . 5 , 3 4 9 n . 7, 367 Berard, J. 24 Berceville, G . 81 Bergmann, J. 24 Bernays, J. 25 B e r n o u l l i , A. 70 n . 4 6 Betz, O . 3 4 , 3 8 , 9 2 n. 4 8 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 Bialoblocki, S. 25 B i c k e r m a n n , E.J. 2 5 , 2 5 8 n . 4 , 284 n. 49, 285 n. 54, 2 8 6 - 2 8 7 n. 5 7 , 2 8 7 n n . 5 8 - 6 0 , 3 1 1 n . 2, 3 1 2 n . 5 , 3 1 3 , 3 1 5 n . 14 Bietak, M . 2 7 6 n . 13 Bilde, P . 2 0 , 2 5 , 3 4 , 4 9 n. 2, 5 0 n . 4 , 5 2 n . 16, 7 9 , 9 4 n n . 1-2, 105 n . 3 6 , 108 n n . 4 2 - 4 3 , 109 n . 4 5 , 110 n . 4 7 , 111 n n . 4 9 - 5 1 , 112, 150 n . 2 8 Bin G o r i o n , E . 25 Black, M . 4 3 , 113 n . 3 1 , 3 4 4 Blanck, H . 5 3 n. 19, 5 5 n . 2 4 , 61 n n . 2 6 - 2 7 , 6 2 n . 2 8 , 8, 6 9 n . 4 5 , 79 Blatt, E . 6 5 n . 3 2 , 7 3 , 7 6 n . 6 0 , 79 Blenkinsopp, J . 9 4 n . 3 , 9 5 n. 10, 9 6 n n . 1 4 - 1 5 , 9 7 n . 16, 9 8 n. 18, 103 n n . 2 9 - 3 0 , 105 n . 3 3 , 106 n . 3 7 , n. 3 9 , 107 n n . 4 0 - 4 1 , 112 Bloch, H . 9 4 n . 2, 112 B l u m , L. 4 0 , 8 1 , 9 8 n . 18, 102 n. 2 6 , 103 n. 3 0 , 1 1 3 , 141 B o c h a r t u s , S. 3 1 8 n. 2 2 Boettger, G. 5 4 n . 2 2 , 79 Bohak, G. 2 8 2 - 2 8 3 n. 39, 283 n. 4 5 , 2 8 4 n. 4 7 , 2 9 4 Bohl, F . M . T . de Liagre 2 5 , 320 n. 3 3 Bonnet, H . 2 7 9 n . 27 Boor, C. de 70 B o r m a n n , L. 224, 226, 283 n. 4 4 B o u c h e - L e c l e r q , A. 3 1 8 n . 21 Bousset, W . 9 6 n . 13, 112, 3 1 9 n . 2 5 Boysen, C. 49, 65 n. 32, 72 n. 5 3 , 7 3 , 79 Braude, W.G. 187, 2 2 5 Braun, H. 9 4 n . 3 , 9 5 n. 10, 112 Braun, M. 225, 322 n. 39

446

MODERN AUTHORS

Bremer, J . M . 2 7 1 n. 1 Broshi, M . 25 Briill, N . 25 Buchler, A. 25 B u c k , A . d e 2 8 0 n . 31 Budinger, M . 25 Buhl, F.P.W. 25 Burnyeat, M.F. 299 Burstein, S.M. 122 n . 16 Busolt, G . 310 n. 1 B u s t o Saiz, J . R . 74 Buder, H.E. 2 3 2 n . 10 Buttner-Wobst, T h . 71 Cadiou, R. 3 8 0 n . 17, 4 0 0 Calabi, F. 25 Cancik, H . 25, 89 n. 29 Caplan, H. 2 3 4 n . 13 Garras, G.P. 26, 58, 79 Cataudella, Q . 26 C h a s s i n a t , E . 3 2 1 n. 3 5 Chesnut, G.F. Jr. 9 5 n . 10, 107 n . 4 1 , 112 C h r i s t e n s e n , D . 2 6 , 101 n. 2 5 , 112 Cintas, P. 26 Clark, D.L. 173 n . 151 Clark, K . W . 26 Clarysse, W . 2 8 4 n . 4 7 , 2 9 1 n. 8 0 , 2 9 4 n. 9 2 C o h e n , N . G . 225, 294 n. 92 C o h e n , S.J.D. 2 6 , 4 9 n . 1, 5 0 n n . 5 - 6 , 7 7 , 7 9 , 9 4 n . 1, 9 5 n . 5, n . 9, 9 8 n . 18, 100 n n . 2 3 - 2 4 , 104 n . 3 1 , 106 n n . 3 7 - 3 8 , 112, 142, 187, 193 n. 1, 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 , 2 0 1 n . 2, 2 0 2 - 2 0 5 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 n . 1, 2 3 0 n. 5 , 2 4 9 n. 2 6 , 2 9 5 - 2 9 6 n . 100, 2 9 7 n . I l l , 3 0 1 - 3 0 2 n . 1 2 3 , 3 4 9 n . 6, 367 C o h n , L. 26 Colace, P.R. 26, 56 C o l l i n s , A . Y . 2 8 0 n . 31 Collins, J.J. 26 C o l l o m p , P . 2 7 , 2 7 6 n . 14 Colson, F.H. 27, 367 Conzelmann, H. 27, 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 n. 4 0 Cornill, C . H . 27 Cramer, J.A. 6 8 n . 4 3 , 3 9 5 n. 4 6 , 400 Creuzer, F. 27 Crockett, L. 27 Crouch, J.E. 27

Cruice, P.F.M.

27

Dalbert, P. 143 n. 2 Daniel, J.L. 2 7 , 198, 2 2 5 D a u b e , D . 2 7 , 9 4 n . 3 , 9 5 n . 7, n n . 9 - 1 0 , 107 n n . 4 0 - 4 1 , 112 Davies, G.I. 27 D a v i s , S. 2 9 4 n. 91 Day, J. 27 D e L a n g e , N . R . M . 2 7 , 6 8 n. 4 1 , 8 0 D e b r u n n e r , A. 5 2 n. 17, 5 3 n. 2 0 , 79 Del Tredici, K. 224, 226 Delling, G. 9 4 n . 3 , 9 5 n. 9 Dequeker,J. 341 n. 19 Derrett, J . D . M . 27 Dessel, v a n P . 2 9 0 n. 72 Diamond, F.H. 3 1 4 n. 11 Dibelius, M . 28 Diels, H . 10, 5 5 - 5 6 , 5 9 , 7 9 , 118 n. 10, 124 n n . 2 3 - 2 4 , 130 n. 3 0 D i h l e , A. 2 9 6 n. 101 Dimant, D. 331 n . 6 Donfried, K . P . 224 Dornseiff, F . 2 8 , 5 6 , 8 0 Dorne, H. 58, 80 Downing, F.G. 28 Drew, D.L. 28 Drews, R. 28 Dreyer, O . 28 D r i o t o n , E . 2 8 , 3 2 3 n. 4 3 Droge, A J . 1 3 - 1 4 , 115, 128 n. 2 8 D r ü n e r , H . 9 4 n . 2, 112 D u n a n d , F . 2 8 4 n. 4 7 Earp, J.W. 367 Ebied, R.Y. 30, 58 Eckhardus, J.F. 28 Eckstein, A . M . 5 8 , 8 0 Eichhorn, J.G. 28 Eisenhut, W . 2 9 8 n. 114, 2 9 9 n. 117 Eissfeldt, O . 28 Emerton,J.A. 341 n. 18 Engberg, R . M . 28 Epstein, J . N . 28 Eshel, E . 341 n . 22 Eshel, H . 3 4 1 n. 22 F a b r i d e Peiresc, N . C . 71 Fairman, H. 2 9 0 n. 6 9 Farmer, W.R. 94 nn. 3 - 4 , 95 n. 9, 112 F a r r e , L. 28 Fau, G. 28

MODERN AUTHORS

Faulkner, R . O . 2 8 0 n. 31 Feldman, L.H. 14, 15, 18, 2 2 n. 5 , 2 8 , 3 6 , 5 2 n. 18, 5 4 - 5 5 n. 2 3 , 5 6 - 5 9 , 6 6 n. 3 3 , 6 8 n n . 4 1 - 4 2 , 72 n. 5 2 , 8 0 , 9 0 n . 3 8 , 9 4 n . 2 9 5 n. 4 , n n . 6 - 7 , n n . 9 - 1 0 , 9 6 n n . 1 2 - 1 4 , 103 n. 3 0 , 107 n . 4 0 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 , 144 n. 4 , 154 n. 5 2 , 156 n. 6 3 , 176 n. 1 6 3 , 187, 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 , 210, 2 2 5 - 2 2 7 , 249 n. 25, 2 5 0 , 2 7 3 n . 5, 2 7 7 n. 19, 2 8 4 n. 4 9 , 287 n. 6 1 , 3 0 7 n. 132, 311 n. 2, 3 1 2 n . 6, 3 1 8 n n . 2 1 - 2 2 , 3 1 9 n. 2 5 , 3 2 0 n. 3 2 , 3 2 7 n . 1, 3 5 4 n. 18, n. 2 0 , 3 6 0 - 3 6 1 n. 2 8 , 3 6 5 n. 4 3 , 3 6 7 - 3 6 8 , 3 7 8 n. 1 1 , 381 n. 18, 3 8 2 , 4 0 1 Fell, W . 2 9 , 101 n. 2 5 , 112 Filipowski, H . b e n J e h e z k e l 29 Finegan, J. 29 Finkelstein, L. 287 n. 64 Flusser, D . 146 n. 7 F r a i n e , J . d e 271 n. 1 Frankfurter, D . 282 n. 39, 283 n n . 4 3 - 4 4 , n. 4 6 , 2 9 1 - 2 9 2 n. 8 1 , 293 nn. 8 8 - 9 0 F r a n k l , F. 29 Franxman, T.W. 197, 2 0 0 , 2 2 5 Fraser, P . M . 2 9 , 3 1 6 n. 16, 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 Freedman, D.N. 2 9 , 341 n. 21 F r e u n d , L. 29 Friedländer, M . 3 1 8 n. 2 1 , 3 2 0 n . 32 Furley, D J . 2 9 8 n. 114, 2 9 9 n. 117 G a b b a , E . 311 n. 3 , 3 1 9 n . 2 5 , 3 2 0 n. 3 2 , 3 2 2 n. 39 Gafni, I. 164 n . 108, 2 0 5 n. 4 , 2 2 5 Gager, J . G . 2 9 , 131 n . 3 3 , 132 n. 3 5 , 135 n. 4 1 , 136 n. 4 3 , 139 n. 4 8 , 2 2 5 , 2 7 5 n . 9, 2 7 8 n . 2 4 , 2 8 2 n. 3 9 , 287 n . 6 1 , 3 1 8 - 3 1 9 n. 2 3 , 3 2 2 n. 3 9 , 3 7 0 n. 2 Galling, K . 29 Garbini, G. 30, 58 G a r d i n e r , A . H . 3 0 , 2 7 6 n. 1 1 , 2 7 8 n. 22 Gauger, J . - D . 30, 55, 58, 60, 80 Gauthier, H . 3 1 6 n. 17 Geffcken, J . 30 G e l b h a u s , S. 30 Gelzer, H . 3 8 5 n. 3 0 , 4 0 1 G e o r g i , D . 3 0 , 187, 2 2 6 Gerber, Chr. 3 0 , 5 0 n . 7, 8 0 , 8 9 G e r b e r , F. 30

447

G e r h a r d s s o n , B. 30 Gerharz, J. 30 Giagrande, G. 30 Gifford, E . H . 387 n. 35, 401 Goldenberg, D. 30 G o l d s c h m i d t , E . 3 1 8 n. 21 Goode, A.D. 30 Goodenough, E.R. 31 Goodman, M. 5 0 - 5 1 n . 10, 67 n. 39, 80, 1 8 7 - 1 8 8 , 2 2 6 - 2 2 7 , 368 G o r a n s o n , St. 58 G o r m a n , P. 31 Goudriaan, K. 2 9 4 n. 91 G r a b b e , L.L. 31 Graetz, H. 3 1 , 3 1 8 n . 21 Grant, R.M. 3 7 1 n. 3 , 3 7 6 n . 9, 3 7 7 n . 10, 4 0 1 Gray, R. 3 1 , 9 4 n . 3 , 9 6 n . 4 , n . 6, n n . 9 - 1 0 , 9 6 n n . 1 2 - 1 5 , 9 8 n . 18, n . 2 2 , 100 n . 2 4 , 101 n . 2 5 , 105 n . 3 2 , n. 3 4 , n . 3 6 , 106 n . 3 7 , n . 3 9 , 107 n n . 4 0 - 4 1 Green, A.R. 31 Greenberg, M. 31 G r e e n s p a h n , F . E . 9 6 n n . 1 3 - 1 4 , 103 n . 3 0 , 112, 3 1 4 n . 11 G r e e n s p o o n , L. 31 Gressmann, H. 3 1 , 9 6 n. 13, 112 n. 3 1 , 319 n. 25 Griffith, J . G . 278 n. 22, 293 n. 87, 295 n. 98, 319 n. 24, 3 2 0 n . 31 Gross, C D . 54 n. 23, 80 Gruen, E.S. 142 G r i i n b a u m , P . 3 2 7 n. 1 Grundmann, W. 8 6 n . 10 Gucht, W. van 2 9 0 n. 72 G u d e m a n n , A. 136 n . 4 2 Gutman, J. 3 1 , 3 1 4 n . 11 G u t s c h m i d t , A. v o n 9 8 n n . 1 8 - 1 9 , 103 n. 3 0 , 112 Guttmann, M. 32 Haacker, K. 38, 112-113 Hadas, M. 253 n. 9 Hadas-Lebel, M . 9 4 n . 2, 9 5 n. 9, 112 H a h n , I. 3 2 , 74 Halevy, J. 3 2 , 2 8 4 n. 4 9 , 2 8 7 n . 6 0 3 1 8 n . 21 Hall, R . G . 1 5 - 1 7 , 229, 230 n. 4 Hardwick, M.E. 6 - 7 , 32, 369, 379 n. 12, 4 0 1 Harl, M. 271 n. 1

448

MODERN AUTHORS

H a r l f i n g e r , D . 5 4 n . 2 1 , 6 3 n. 3 0 , 72 n. 52, 80 H a r m o n , A. 220 H a r n a c k , A . 3 8 2 n. 2 4 , 3 8 4 n. 2 8 , 401 H a t a , G. 22 n. 5, 36, 74, 80, 113, 197, 2 2 5 - 2 2 7 , 3 5 2 n . 14, 3 5 4 n. 20, 367 Hay, D.M. 3 2 , 170 n . 140, 2 9 5 n . 100, 2 9 6 n . 1 0 3 , 2 9 7 n. 112 H e i n e m a n n , I. 3 2 , 3 1 8 n. 2 2 , 3 2 2 n. 39 Helck, W . 2 7 6 n . 1 1 , n . 13 Helm, R. 394 n. 44, 401 Hengel, M . 30, 32, 38, 80, 112-113 H e n r i c h s , A. 2 9 3 n . 87 Henten, J.W. van 1 0 - 1 1 , 17, 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 n n . 2 - 3 , 2 7 6 n . 12, 2 7 8 n. 2 1 , 2 9 0 n . 7 1 , 2 9 1 - 2 9 2 n. 8 1 , 2 9 2 n. 8 3 , 2 9 5 n n . 9 6 , 9 8 , 3 0 7 n. 132, 347 n. 37, 348 n . l Herzog, LH. 32 Holladay, C.R. 3 2 , 8 0 , 2 5 2 n. 7, 3 5 4 n. 2 0 , 3 6 7 Hölscher, G. 6 1 , 8 0 , 9 4 n . 1, 9 7 n. 17, 1 1 3 , 2 2 6 , 3 4 8 n. 3 , 3 6 7 Hommel, H. 32 Hopfner, T. 282 n. 36 Horan, R. 3 3 , 5 0 n . 6, 8 0 Horbury, W. 364 nn. 3 8 - 3 9 , 367 Horizonte, B. 4 1 , 74 H o r n u n g , E. 3 3 , 276 n 11, 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 n. 2 7 Horst, P.W. van der 8-10, 33, 5 6 , 8 0 , 8 3 , 2 2 8 , 2 7 2 n . 2, 2 7 9 n . 2 7 , 2 8 0 n . 2 9 , 2 8 2 n. 3 6 , n. 3 9 , 2 8 7 n . 6 1 , 3 4 8 n. 1, 3 5 6 - 3 5 7 n. 25 Hubbell, H.W. 2 3 4 n . 12 Hunger, H. 61 n . 2 6 , 6 8 n. 4 1 , 8 0 H u r v i t z , A . 3 4 1 n . 21 Huxley, G. 33 Hyatt, J.P. 33 Isserlin, B.S.J.

58

Jablönski, P.E. 33 Jackson, B.S. 3 3 , 44 Jacobson, H. 33 J a c o b y , A. 3 3 , 2 8 4 n . 4 9 , 2 8 7 n . 6 1 , 3 1 8 n. 2 2 , 3 1 9 n . 2 4 J a c o b y , F. 10, 3 3 , 4 0 , 8 0 , 2 6 5 n . 2 4 , 3 1 0 n. 1, 3 2 2 n. 3 9 Jaeger, W. 33

Janne, H. 34 J e l l i c o e , S. 3 1 9 n. 2 4 J e r e m i a s , A. 34 Jeremias, J. 3 4 , 3 3 1 n. 4, 3 4 3 n. 2 7 , 3 4 4 n. 2 9 , 3 4 6 n n . 3 4 - 3 5 , 347 Johnson, M.D. 34 Jordan, M.D. 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 , 222, 226, 364 Kahn-Jashar, J. 34 Kaiser, O . 7 1 , 3 1 6 n. 17 K a m i a h , E. 34 K a p l o n y - H e c k e l , U . 3 1 6 n. 17 Karst, J. 3 9 4 n. 4 4 , 4 0 1 K a s h e r , A . 7 - 9 , 19, 2 2 , 3 4 , 9 8 , 113, 1 4 3 , 156 n . 6 0 , 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 n. 4 0 K a t z , P . 3 4 , 101 n. 2 5 , 103 n. 3 0 , 113 Katzenstein, H J . 34 K a u t z s c h , E . 3 5 , 8 9 n. 2 9 Keeble, K. 3 5 , 144 n. 4 , 170 n. 140 Kees, H. 2 7 8 n. 2 2 Kellner, W . 35 K e m p i n s k i , A. 35 K e n n e d y , G.A. 173 n. 1 5 1 , 2 2 6 , 2 6 4 n . 2 3 , 2 9 8 n . 114, 3 0 0 n. 121 Kippenberg, H.G. 35 K i t t e l , G . 91 n . 4 4 Klein, G. 35 K n o h l , I. 341 n. 21 Koch, K. 35 K o e n e n , L. 2 8 3 n. 4 2 , 2 9 0 n n . 7 2 - 7 3 , 2 9 1 n. 7 5 , n n . 8 0 - 8 1 , 2 9 4 n. 9 3 Koester, H . 2 9 6 n. 101 K ö n i g s m a n n , B. 35 Kontos, K.S. 35 Kopidakis, M . Z . 35, 57, 80 Kraabel, T.A. 187, 2 2 6 Kraemer, R.S. 226 Kraft, R.A. 226 Krall, J . 35 Kranz, W. 10, 2 8 9 n. 6 8 K r i e g e r , K . - S t . 3 5 , 51 n. 4 1 , 8 0 , 197, 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 n. 1 Krüger, P. 35 Küchler, M. 35 Kuhn, K.G. 3 2 , 35 Labib, P.C. 35 Ladouceur, D J . 8 4 n . 2, 174 n. 155 L a m p e , P. 191, 226 Laqueur, R. 3 6 , 9 4 n. 1, 1 1 3 , 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 , 2 2 6 , 2 7 5 n . 8, 3 2 2 n. 3 9 Launey, M . 3 1 6 n. 18 Lebram, J.C.H. 36

MODERN AUTHORS Leibovitch, J . 36 L e i m a n , S.Z. 3 6 , 9 6 n . 14, 101 n. 2 5 , 103 n n . 2 9 - 3 0 , 113 Leipoldt, J . 36 Leon, H J . 187, 1 9 0 - 1 9 1 , 193, 2 2 6 Leshem, H. 36 Levi, A . C . 2 9 0 n. 6 9 Levy, I. 3 6 , 4 0 , 2 6 5 n. 2 4 Lewis, N . 3 0 7 n. 132 Lewy, J . H . 3 6 , 4 2 , 163 n. 105 Lightfoot, J . B . 3 8 4 n. 2 8 , 4 0 1 Lind, M . C . 36 L i n d a r s , B. 3 3 9 n. 14 Lindblom, J. 36 L i n d e r , A. 226 L i n d n e r , H . 9 4 n . 2, 9 5 n n . 9 - 1 0 , 9 6 n. 15, 113 Linton, O . 37 Lipinski, E. 37 Liver, J . 37 Lohr, H . 30, 80 L ö v e l i n g , E. 2 9 0 n. 71 Lumbroso, G. 37 L u n d s t r ö m , S. 37 MacMullen, R. 210, 226 M a e h l e r , H . 291 n. 8 0 M a l a m a t , A. 37 Malitz, J . 3 1 0 n. 1 Manteuffel, G . 2 8 3 n. 4 0 , n. 4 2 , 2 9 3 n. 9 0 Marcus, R. 37, 3 6 7 - 3 6 8 Marrou, H.I. 217, 263 nn. 2 1 - 2 2 Martini, C M . 257 M a r t o n e , C . 341 n . 21 M a s o n , S.N. 17-19, 94 nn. 2 - 3 , 9 5 n. 4, n. 6, n n . 9 - 1 0 , 9 6 n. 15, 97 n. 16, 105 n . 3 4 , 106 n. 3 7 , n. 3 9 , 107 n. 4 1 , 1 1 3 , 187, 197, 2 2 6 , 231 n. 9, 2 9 6 n. 102, 2 9 7 n. 110, n. 112 Matthews, LG. 37 M a y e r , R . 9 5 n n . 9 - 1 0 , 113 M a z z a , F. 3 7 , 5 8 McEleney, N.J. 227 McKelvey, R J . 37 M c K n i g h t , S. 187, 1 9 3 , 2 2 6 - 2 2 7 M e e k s , W . A . 3 7 , 3 5 4 n. 2 0 , 3 6 7 Menard, J.E. 37 Mendels, D . 37 M e s h o r e r , Y. 37 M e y e r , E. 3 7 , 3 1 9 n. 2 5 , 3 2 2 n. 3 9 Meyer, R. 3 8 , 9 6 n. 13, 101 n . 2 5 , 103 n. 3 0 , 113 n . 3 8

449

Michaelis, W . 88 n. 27, 89 n. 29 Michel, O . 7 6 n . 6 0 , 8 0 , 9 4 n . 2, 9 6 n. 1 1 , n. 15, 106 n . 3 8 , 113 Migne, J.P. 70 n . 4 9 Milde, H . 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 n. 2 7 , n . 31 Miliar, F. 143 n. 2, 2 2 8 n . 6 3 , 3 4 4 n. 31 Mizugaki, W. 68 n. 40, 80 Modrzejewski, J . M . 38 Moehring, H.R. 9 4 n . 2, 9 5 n . 10, 9 8 n . 18, 106 n . 137, 1 1 3 , 2 2 7 Möller, Chr. 54 n. 22, 80, 95 n n . 9 - 1 0 , 113 M o m i g l i a n o , A. 3 8 , 140, 142, 3 1 0 n. 1 M o n t e t , P . 3 8 , 2 7 6 n. 13, 2 7 8 n. 2 3 Montgomery, J.A. 9 5 n . 9, 9 7 n. 16, 113 M o r e n z , S. 36 Morgenstern, J. 38 Morin, H. 38 Mortley, R. 38 M o s s h a m m e r , A.A. 6 8 - 6 9 n. 4 3 M o t z o , B. 38 Movers, F.C. 38 Movers, F.E. 319 n. 25 Mras, K. 8 0 , 6 9 n. 4 4 , 3 8 6 n . 3 4 , 401 Müller, J . G . 3 9 , 7 3 n . 5 5 , 9 6 n . 13, 9 8 n n . 1 8 - 2 0 , 101 n. 2 5 , 103 n . 3 0 , 113, 2 1 1 , 2 1 7 n . 6, 2 2 7 , 3 1 8 n . 2 1 , 319 n. 25, 322 n. 39 M u r r a y , D . 3 9 , 4 4 , 130 n . 3 1 , 132 n . 3 5 , 133 n . 37 Mussies, G. 2 7 9 n. 2 7 , 2 8 2 n. 3 6 N a b e r , S.A. 7, 6 4 , 8 0 Naekius, A.F. 39 Nagel, M . 2 8 2 n. 37 Nazzaro, A.V. 39 N e h a m a s , A. 2 9 8 n. 114, 2 9 9 n. 117 Neher-Bernheim, R. 311 n . 2, 3 1 7 n . 19, 3 1 8 n . 2 1 , 3 1 9 n. 2 5 Nestle, E . 3 9 , 3 1 4 n . 11 Neusner, J. 25, 205, 225, 227 Neyrey, J . H . 77 Nickelsburg, G . W . E . 226, 368 Niebuhr, C. 39 N i e s e , B . 7, 3 9 , 4 9 , 5 2 n . 18, 6 3 n. 2 9 , 8 0 - 8 1 , 8 3 , 9 4 n. 2, 1 1 3 , 3 7 5 n. 8, 4 0 1 Nikiprowetzky, V. 3 1 4 n. 11

450

MODERN AUTHORS

Nock, A . D . 214, 217, 227 N o d e t , É. 56, 59, 65 n. 32, 6 9 - 7 0 n. 4 3 , 71 n . 5 0 , 7 9 n . 6 3 , 81 O d e d , B. 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 n. 40 O d e n , R.A. 125 n . 2 6 Oesterley, W . O . E . 39 Ulbricht, T . H . 231 n. 7 Olck, F. 285 n. 50 O'Neill, J . C . 3 4 3 n . 2 6 , 3 4 7 n. 37 O p p e n h e i m e r , A. 164 n . 108 O r e l l i , G. v o n 39, 73 n. 55 Orrieux, C. 143 n. 3 , 187, 2 2 8 Otto, J.C.T. 2 8 , 3 4 , 3 7 2 n . 5, 3 7 5 , 401 Parente, F. 7 9 - 8 1 , 113, 227 Paton, W.R. 3 1 4 - 3 1 5 n . 12 P a u l , A. 8 1 , 109, 3 6 1 n. 2 9 , 3 6 7 , 3 9 9 , P e a r s o n , L . 2 3 4 n. 14 P e a s e , A . S . 2 5 6 n . 11 P e d e r s e n , S. 39 Pelletier, A. 8 1 , 5 3 n . 2 0 , 2 2 7 Penuela, J . M . 39 P e r d r i z e t , P . 3 1 8 n . 21 Peremans, W. 291 n. 80 Perlman, H. 161 n. 9 1 , 172 n . 149 Pestman, P.W. 291 n. 80 Petersen, H . 3 9 , 3 6 7 , 3 4 9 n . 5, 3 6 0 - 3 6 1 n. 28, 367 Pfeiffer, R . H . 39 Pfister, F . 39 Phrilingos, K. 74 Pilhofer, P . 4 0 , 5 0 n . 6, n . 9, 5 5 - 5 9 , 66 n n . 3 5 - 3 6 , 68 n. 42, 74 n. 58, 77 n . 6 1 , 8 1 , 142 P l ü m a c h e r , E . 5 7 , 5 9 , 81 P o l i a k o v , L. 3 8 , 4 0 P o n d , E. 40 Popper, K.R. 2 5 9 n . 15 P o r t e r , S.E. 231 n. 7 P o z n a n s k i , A . 9 5 n . 10, 113 Préaux, C . 40, 291 n. 80 Pucci Ben Zeev, M . 40, 57, 60, 8 1 , 275 n. 9 Puech, A. 40 Quaegebeur, J.

294 n. 92

Radin, M. 40 Radozycki, J. 74 Rajak, T . 40, 58, 8 1 , 94, 96 n. 11, n . 15, 1 1 3 , 2 2 6 , 2 2 9 n . 2, 2 3 0 n. 6, 2 4 9 n. 2 6 , 3 4 8 n . 2, 3 5 4 n . 2 0 , 3 6 8

Ramsay, W.M. 40 R a p o p o r t - A l b e r t , A. 142 Redford, D.B. 40 Reiling,J. 113 R e i n a c h , T . 9 5 n . 10 Reinhardt, K. 9 6 n. 12 Rengstorf, K . H . 6, 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 3 n. 1, 8 6 , 8 7 n . 16, 91 n. 4 2 , 145 n. 5 Revel, B. 40 Richards, G.C. 3 4 9 n. 5, 3 6 8 R i g g e n b a c h , C.J. 3 9 , 7 3 n. 5 5 R i s k i n , S. 41 R i t o ö k , Z . 5 7 , 81 R i v k i n , E . 3 9 , 41 Rochemontex, M. 321 n. 35 Roeder, G. 3 1 6 n. 17 Rokeah, D. 41 Römer, M. 52, 276 Rösch, R. 3 1 8 n. 2 1 , 3 2 0 n. 3 3 Rosen, H.B. 41 R o s e n b e r g , A. 3 1 0 n. 1 Rosenbloom, J.R. 41 Ross, J . M . 5 2 n . 17, 81 R o t h , L. 41 Rowton, M.B. 41 R ü h l , F . 3 1 , 4 1 , 112 Runia, D.T. 51 n . 1 1 , 8 1 , 2 2 5 Ryle, H . E . 41 Safrai, S. 4 4 , 5 2 n. 17, 8 1 , 311 n. 3 , 3 4 1 n. 2 0 Sanders, E.R 198, 2 2 7 , 3 3 3 n. 8, 3 3 4 n. 9, 3 3 5 n. 10, 3 4 0 n n . 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 4 4 n. 3 0 , n . 3 2 , 3 4 6 n. 3 6 S a n d m e l , S. 41 S a n t o s , R . d o s 4 1 , 74 Sargans, A.H. von 41 Sarowy, W . 41 Satran, D. 3 5 9 n. 2 7 , 3 6 8 Schalit, A. 4 1 , 5 4 n. 2 2 , 8 1 , 9 4 n. 1, 9 6 n . 1 1 , 106 n. 3 7 , 113, 2 0 5 , 227 Schaller, B. 41 S c h ä u b l e i n , P . 9 8 n. 18, n. 2 2 , 113 S c h ä u b l i n , C . 4 2 , 5 0 n. 3 , n n . 8 - 9 , 5 7 - 5 9 , 6 6 n. 3 4 , 8 1 , 141 Scheller, M . 4 2 , 9 2 n. 4 6 Schiffman, L . H . 2 0 5 n. 4 , 2 2 7 , 331 n. 6, 3 3 6 n . 1 1 , 3 4 1 - 3 4 2 n. 2 4 S c h l a t t e r , A . 5 4 n . 2 2 , 8 1 , 8 8 n. 2 6 , 89 n. 30, 90 nn. 3 7 - 3 8 Schmid, G. 89 n. 29 Schmid, W. 4 2 , 91 n. 4 5 , 9 2 n. 4 9 Schmidt, V. 42 Schmitt, G. 5 4 n. 2 2 , 8 0

MODERN AUTHORS

S c h n a b e l , P. 5 6 , 81 Schoedel, W . R . 42 S c h o t t , S. 2 9 2 n. 8 4 S c h r e c k e n b e r g , H . 6 - 7 , 9, 2 2 n. 5 , 3 3 , 4 4 , 4 9 , 51 n. 12, 5 4 n. 2 3 , 5 9 , 61 n. 2 7 , 6 2 n. 2 8 , 6 3 n. 2 9 , 6 4 n. 3 1 , 6 5 n . 3 2 , 6 6 n. 3 3 , n . 3 6 , 6 7 nn. 3 7 - 3 8 , 68 nn. 4 1 - 4 3 , 69 n. 44, 70 n n . 4 7 - 4 8 , 72 n. 5 0 , 72 n . 5 1 , n. 5 3 , 73 n n . 5 4 - 5 6 , 74 n . 5 7 , 7 6 n. 6 0 , 79 n. 6 3 , 8 1 , 251 n . 4 , 3 7 0 n. 1 Schubart, W. 75 n. 5 9 , 81 Schubert, K. 81 Schuhl, P.-M. 36, 42 Schulze, L.T. 42 S c h u r e r , E. 4 2 , 143 n. 2, 146 n. 7, 187, 2 2 7 , 2 8 8 n. 6 3 , 3 4 4 n. 3 1 , 3 6 8 S c h w a r t z , E. Schwartz, D.R. 9 5 n . 9, 3 3 8 n. 13, 3 4 1 - 3 4 2 n. 2 4 , 3 6 2 - 3 6 3 n. 3 2 , 3 6 6 n. 4 5 , 3 6 8 Schwartz, J. 42 S c h w a r t z , S. 4 2 , 51 n. 15, 6 7 n. 5 9 , 8 1 , 9 4 n. 1, 1 1 3 , 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 n. 3 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 7 , 3 4 8 , 3 4 9 n. 5, 3 6 8 Schwyzer, H . R . 42 Segal, A . F . 2 0 5 , 2 2 7 Segal, M . H . 42 S e g r e , A. 43 Seters, J . v a n 4 5 , 2 7 6 n. 1 1 , n. 13, n. 14, 2 7 8 n. 2 3 Sevenster, J . N . 38, 4 3 , 227 Shotwell, J . T . 43 Shutt, R J . H . 9, 4 3 , 8 1 , 8 4 n . 2, 9 4 n. 2, 113, 3 4 9 n. 5, 3 6 8 Siegel, J . P . 43 Sievers, J . 7 9 - 8 1 , 113, 227 Silver, D.J. 43 S i m o n , M . 4 3 , 9 6 n. 14, 187, 2 2 7 S i m o n s e n , D . 3 1 8 n. 2 2 S m a l l w o o d , E . M . 4 3 , 136 n . 4 3 , 1 9 3 , 2 2 8 , 2 9 8 n. 8 9 S m i t h , J . Z . 4 3 , 130 n. 2 9 , 132 n . 3 6 Smith, M . 4 3 , 7 9 - 8 0 , 196-197, 2 0 1 , 228, Smith, W . R . 43, 384, 401 Sottas, H . 3 1 6 n. 17 S p e n g e l , L. 2 6 8 n . 30 Sperling, A . G . 43 S p e y e r , W . 4 3 , 2 8 4 n. 4 9 Spiegel, J . 2 7 8 n. 2 2 Spilsbury, P . 2 0 - 2 1 , 3 4 8 , 3 5 4 n . 2 0 , 368

451

Spottorno, Diaz-Caro, M.V. 74 Stadelmann, R. 2 7 6 n. 14, 2 7 8 n . 2 3 S t â h l i n , F . 3 1 9 n. 2 5 Stàhlin, O . 4 2 , 91 n . 41 Standhartinger, A. 224, 226, 283 n. 44 Stegemann, H. 35 Sterling, G . E . 4 4 , 9 4 n. 2, 9 5 n . 9 - 1 0 , 9 8 n. 18, 106 n. 3 7 , 107 n . 4 1 , 108 n . 4 2 , 1 1 3 , 145 n . 6, 151 n . 3 4 , 2 2 8 , 2 7 5 n n . 8 - 9 , 3 0 5 n . 136 Stern, M . 10, 4 0 , 4 4 , 5 5 , 5 9 , 8 1 - 8 2 , 118 n. 9, 119 n. 1 1 , 123 n n . 1 9 - 2 1 , 124 n. 2 5 , 130 n. 3 2 , 136 n . 4 5 , 151 n. 3 6 , 164 n . 108, 173 n . 152, 2 2 8 , 2 5 0 n . 2, 2 6 5 n. 2 5 , 2 7 5 nn. 9 - 1 0 , 276 nn. 13-14, 277 n n . 1 7 - 1 9 , 2 7 8 n . 2 3 , 2 8 0 n. 2 8 , n. 3 2 , 2 8 2 n n . 3 6 - 3 7 , n . 3 9 , 2 8 3 n. 4 0 , n. 4 5 , 2 8 5 n n . 5 1 - 5 4 , 2 8 6 n . 5 7 , 2 8 7 n. 6 1 , 2 8 8 n . 6 5 , 2 8 9 n. 66, 2 9 1 - 2 9 2 n. 8 1 , 294 n. 92, n. 9 5 , 3 0 5 n . 129, 3 1 1 n . 3 , 3 1 5 n . 15, 3 1 6 n . 16, 3 1 8 n . 2 2 , 3 1 9 n . 2 4 , 3 2 2 - 3 2 3 n . 4 0 , 341 n. 2 0 , 3 4 3 n . 27 Strassburger, H . 310 n. 1 Strieker, B . H . 4 4 , 2 8 4 n . 4 9 , 2 8 5 n . 5 0 Strocka, V . M . 291 n. 80 Suemihl, F. Sundberg, A.C. 44 T a l m o n , S. 3 4 1 n . 21 Taubes, J. 26, 89 n. 29 Taylor, M . 28 T c h e r i k o v e r , V . 4 4 , 115 n . 1, 1 3 6 - 1 3 7 n . 4 5 , 143 n . 2, 2 8 7 n. 6 1 , 319 n. 25, 320 n. 3 3 , 322 n. 40 Teixidor, J. 44 T e r i a n , A . 4 4 , 51 n. 1 1 , 8 2 Thackeray, H.St J. 1, 7, 9, 4 5 , 6 4 n . 3 1 , 76 n . 6 0 , 8 2 , 9 4 n . 2, 9 8 n . 18, 102 n . 2 6 , 114, 123 n . 2 0 , 1 4 1 , 143 n . 1, 196, 2 1 7 n . 6, 2 2 8 , 2 3 0 n. 3 , 2 4 3 n. 2 0 , 2 7 1 n . 1, 2 8 1 n . 3 4 , 3 1 5 n . 13, 3 3 6 , 3 4 4 n . 3 2 , 3 4 5 n . 3 3 , 3 4 9 n. 5 , 3 6 4 n . 3 6 , 368, 389 n. 39, 395 n. 4 5 , 401 Theodoridis, C. 45, 56, 82 Thiele, E.R. 45 Thissen, H.J. 2 7 5 n . 8, 2 9 1 nn. 77-79 Tiede, D.L. 354 n. 20, 368

452

MODERN AUTHORS

T o e p e l m a n n , P. 310 n. 1 T o o r n , K. v a n der 272 n. 2 T o s a t o , A. 45 Trebolle Barrera, J. 3 3 6 n. 1 1 , 341 n. 2 2 T r e d i c i , K . del 2 2 4 , 2 8 3 n . 4 5 Treves, M . 45 T r o i a n i , L. 4 5 , 7 4 n . 5 8 , 9 8 n . 18, 114, 156 n . 6 2 , 2 7 3 n . 5, 2 8 2 Trublet, J. 45 Uffenheimer, B. 45 Unnik, W . C . van 45, 94 nn. 2 - 3 , 95 n n . 9 - 1 0 , H i n . 5 1 , 114 U r b a c h , E.E. 45 Vandier, J. 28 V a n ' t D a c k , E . 2 9 0 n . 72 V a r s a t , I. 46 V e g a s M o n t a n e r , L . 3 3 6 n. 1 1 , 3 4 1 n. 22 V e l d e , H . te 2 7 2 n . 4 , 2 7 8 n n . 2 2 - 2 3 , 2 9 0 n. 7 0 , 3 1 9 n. 2 6 , 320 n. 3 1 , 322 nn. 3 7 - 3 8 Vellas, V . 46 Vermaseren, M J . 4 5 , 114, 2 7 9 n . 27 Vermes, G. 4 2 , 4 6 , 9 5 n . 6, n . 10, 108 n n . 4 3 - 4 4 , H i n . 5 1 , 114, 143 n . 2, 2 2 7 , 3 6 8 n . 6 3 V i l l a l b a i V a r n e d a , P . 4 6 , 2 2 9 n. 1 Vischer, L. 4 6 , 284 n. 49, 287 n. 61 Vitelli, G . 282 n. 37, 283 n. 40, 284 n. 4 8 Viviano, B.T. 46 Vogelstein, M . 46 Vogt, E. 46 Wace, H. 3 8 4 n. 2 8 W a c h o l d e r , B . Z . 4 6 , 5 6 , 8 2 , 118 n . 10, 3 7 0 n . 2, 4 0 1 Waddell, W.G. 46, 57, 82, 322 n. 39 Wallach, L. 46

Walter, N . 46, 5 6 - 5 7 , 59, 82 Walton, F.R. 2 9 4 - 2 9 5 n. 95 W a r s c h a w s k i , E. 81 W e b e r , K . - O . 3 8 0 - 3 8 1 n. 17, 4 0 1 Weber, W. 9 4 , 114 Wegenast, K. 2 9 6 n. 101 Wehrli, F. 82 Weill, R . 47 W e i s s , H . - F . 4 7 , 199, 2 2 8 Wellmann, M. 47 W e n d l a n d , P. 47 Westcott, B.F. 47 Whitaker, G.H. 367 Whittaker, M . 228 W i k g r e n , A. 368 Wilcken, U . 37, 47 Wilde, R. 47 Wilken, R.L. 37 Will, E. 143 n. 3 , 187, 2 2 8 W i l l i a m s , D . S . 9, 3 4 , 4 7 , 5 8 Williamson, H . G . M . 341 n. 18 Willrich, H . 47 W i l m e s , E . 307 n . 132 Wilson, J.A. 47 Wilson, R. M c L . 47 Winnicki, J . K . 2 9 4 n. 9 2 Winstedt, O . 70 n . 4 9 W i n t e r , P . 2 8 , 341 n . 2 3 Wise, M . O . 341 n. 21 Wiseman, D J . 29, 33, 46, 48 Wolff, M . 48 W o u d e , A . S . v a n d e r 2 7 2 n. 3 W r i g h t , D . P . 341 n . 21 Yavetz, Z. 48 Young, M.J.L. 30, 58 Yoyotte, J . 4 8 , 134 n. 4 0 , 2 7 7 n. 19, 2 8 7 n. 6 1 , 2 9 4 n . 9 2 Zacher, K. 267 n. 28 Z e i d i n , S. 48 Zeller, E . 48 Z i p s e r , M . 4 8 , 3 1 8 n. 21 Zuntz, G. 48

A

CONCORDANCE

T O

T E X T O F CONTRA

THE

LATIN

APIONEM

H E I N Z SCHRECKENBERG

A

accipio to o b t a i n , receive

a, a b

erhalten, b e k o m m e n

CA 2, 5 3 . 5 5 . 5 8 . 6 0 . 6 2 . 6 2 . 6 4 . 6 4 . 64. 67. 7 1 . 86. 86. 9 3 . 9 3 . 94. 97. 104. 108

multas valde piagas accip i u n t (sc. asini) accusatio

abicio

accusation, reproach

to throw away

Anklage, Vorwurf

wegwerfen in q u a n d a m f o v e a m reliqua hominis pereuntis a b i c e r e [abjicere N a b e r ]

CA 2, 8 7

CA 2, 9 5

accusatio J u d a e o r u m

CA 2, 6 3

accuso to accuse, reproach

abscedo

anklagen, vorwerfen

to g o a w a y

CA 2, 6 3 . 74. 8 0 . 8 2 . [82.] 9 0 . 9 2 . 9 4

J u d a e o s accusare praesumpsit, c u m eos l a u d a r e d e buerit si c u m v e r i t a t e o b h o c a c cusat J u d a e o s accusant q u i d e m nos, q u a r e nos eosdem deos cum aliis n o n c o l i m u s '

accedo

ad

weggehen si o m n e s a b s c e d e r e n t

CA 2, 112

ac

to g o t o , c o m e t o — C A 2, 8 3 = t o p r o c e e d (to s o m e t h i n g ) , set a b o u t (something) g e h e n zu, k o m m e n z u — C A 2, 8 3 = (zu etwas) schreiten, sich (an etwas) machen egestate p e c u n i a r u m ad CA 2, 8 3 h o c accessit a d a r e a s a c c e d e n t e s (sc. 2, 8 7 asini) c o n s u l e n t e m a ministris a d 2, 9 4 se a c c e d e n t i b u s audisse legem ut ad templum accederet 2, 9 8

CA 2, 5 6

2, 6 8 2, 7 9

CA 2, 5 3 . 5 8 . 6 0 . [71.] 8 1 . 8 2 . 8 3 . 8 7 . 8 7 . 8 8 . 9 2 . 9 3 . 9 4 . 9 5 . 9 7 . 9 8 . 100. 100. 108. 108. 108. 109. 109. 1 1 1 . 112. 112 addo to append, a d d hinzutun, hinzufügen e t i a m h o c o p u s s e m p e r est additum adgredior to attack angreifen

[aggredior]

CA 2, 6 9

454

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

auxiliatores suos et a m i c o s a d g r e s s u s [aggressus N a ­ h e r ] est

CA 2, 8 3

[attineo]

t o c o n c e r n , relate (to s o m e t h i n g ) , b e ­ l o n g (to s o m e t h i n g ) betreffen, sich (auf etwas) beziehen, (zu etwas) g e h ö r e n

adicio to a d d hinzufügen a d i c i e n s [adjiciens N a b e r ] fabulae suae M n a s e a m [testem e x c i d i s s e p u t a t Boysen]

adtineo

CA 2, 112

nulla re, q u a e a d c i b u m aut p o t u m a d t i n e a t [attineat N a b e r ] , in t e m p l o delata advenio to c o m e (up to) (hinzu) k o m m e n

adimpleo (viam) a d i m p l e r e = t o c o v e r (a stretch of r o a d ) c o m p l e t e l y

q u i a l i u n d e in A l e x a n driam advenerunt

(viam) a d i m p l e r e = (einen W e g ) bis z u m Ziel g e h e n

adversor

licet. . viam propositam [aut proposita ed. pr.] n o n a d i m p l e a n t (sc. asini) administratif)

CA 2, 8 7

CA 2, 67

t o b e hostile feindlich sein bestias adversantes n a t u r a e n o s t r a e colitis

CA 2, 6 6

[amministratio] adversus,

administration

adversum

CA 2, 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 6 . 6 9 . 70. 7 8 . 9 9 . 9 9

Verwaltung a d m i n i s t r a t i o [ N a b e r : amministratio c o d d . ] tritici

CA 2, 6 4

adytum inaccessible p a r t of a s a n c t u a r y , H o l y of H o l i e s

[administra] n e q u e i n t u s ulla e p u l a t i o m i n i s t r a t u r [administratur Naber] admiror

CA 2, 108

[CA 2, 107]

in a d y t u m v e r o soli p r i n cipes s a c e r d o t u m (sc. ingrediebantur)

[ammiror]

CA 2, 7 3 = t o a d m i r e ; CA 2, 79 = t o b e a m a z e d a t (something) CA 2, 7 3 = b e w u n d e r n ; CA 2, 7 9 = sich ü b e r (etwas) w u n d e r n a d m i r a r i [ed. p r i n c : am(m)irari c o d d . ] m a g n a n i mitatem . . R o m a n o r u m a d m i r o r [am(m)iror L B R ] a u t e m e t i a m eos

u n z u g ä n g l i c h e r T e i l eines H e i l i g t u m s , Allerheiligstes

CA 2, 7 3

2, 79

CA 2, 104

[affero] p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia bénéficia prodidisse et detulisse [bénéficia visa attulisse Gelenius] laetitiam

[CA 2, 94]

affirmo to affirm, assert versichern, b e h a u p t e n

adoro to greet reverently ehrfürchtig

h o c affirmât fuisse d e p a latum

begrüßen

ilium vero m o x adorasse regis i n g r e s s u m

CA 2, 9 2

[ a g g r e d i o r ] —> a d g r e d i o r

CA 2, 8 0

455

A CONCORDANCE ago

aliqui

to d o , p e r f o r m ; p a e n i t e n t i a m a g e r e = to r e p e n t

CA 2, 8 5 . 8 6 . 9 8 . 106. 107. 112.

tun, handeln; paenitentiam agere = R e u e zeigen

aliquis

ex his q u a e i a m e g e r a t vel acturus erat ex his q u a e i a m e g e r a t vel acturus erat ex his q u a e i a m e g e r a t . . p a e n i t e n t i a m [popiitentiam N a b e r ] egit n o n se p u t a n t i m p i e a g e r e ut a d v e r s u s solos G r a e cos . . p e r effusionem sanguinis a g e r e m u s [Sobius: egeremus L B R C et ed. pr.] nihil a m p l i u s n e q u e m y s t e riorum a l i q u o r u m ineffabilium agitur

aliunde 2, 5 5

CA 2, 67

2, 5 5

alius

2, 79 2, 9 9

CA 2, 5 5 . 5 5 . 5 8 . 5 8 . 6 4 . 74. 7 4 . 76. 7 7 . 7 9 . 8 1 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 8 7 . 9 1 . 9 9 . 108 altare altar Altar

2, 107

agriculture

altare m e n s a t u r i b u l u m c a n delabrum talia n a m q u e e t i a m a d altare offerre p r o h i b i t u m est

2, 109

CA 2, 8 9

Ackerbau, Landwirtschaft CA 2, 87

alteruter CA 2, 6 5

aio

amator

to say

admirer, devotee

sagen

Verehrer, Bewunderer

ait, inquit, esse q u i d e m se Graecum sicut a i u n t sicut ait A p i o n ait (sc. Apion) e n i m ilium (sc. M n a s e a m ) retulisse

CA 2, 106

alter

agriculture, farming

ad agriculturam rebus necessariis

CA 2, 8 1 . 8 3

CA 2, 5 5

CA 2, 9 3 2, 9 8 2, 100 2, 112

G r a e c o r u m a m a t o r eximius

CA 2, 101

amatorius a m a t o r i a res = love-affair a m a t o r i a res = Liebesaffare Antoniumque corrumpens amatoriis rebus

alienigena

CA 2, 5 8

s t r a n g e , foreign ambulo

fremd, a u s l ä n d i s c h d i r e p t u m se subito a b alienigenis h o m i n i b u s ingredi licebat o m n i b u s e t i a m alienigenis aliquando CA 2, 9 9

CA 2, 9 3

to w a l k a b o u t umhergehen

2, 103

ita ambulasse, ut p r o c u l stantibus a p p a r e r e t , q u a s i s t e l l a e p e r t e r r a m xfiv

rcopelav

TCOIOD^IEVCOV

CA 2, 113

456

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

amicus

annus

friend

year

Freund

Jahr

i m p e t u facto s u p e r a m i c o s eius p a t r i a e i n i m i c u m . . et infidelem circa suos a m i c o s s u p e r n o s auxiliatores [socios insuper nos G e l e n i u s ] suos et a m i c o s a d g r e s s u s est

CA 2, 5 4

h o c illos facere singulis a n nis

CA 2, 9 4

2, 5 8 [annuus] 2, 8 3

[ a m m i n i s t r a t i o ] —> a d m i n i s t r a t i o

comprehendere . . Graecum peregrinum eumque ann a l i [annuo G e l e n i u s ] tempore saginare

[CA 2, 95]

antiquus old

[ a m m i r o r ] —> a d m i r o r

alt amplio

a n t i q u i s . . sollemnitatibus a n t i q u a s inimicitias

to h o n o u r ehren q u i b u s n o s et i m p e r a t o r e s et p o p u l u m R o m a n o r u m dignitatibus a m p l i a m u s

CA 2, 76

CA 2, 6 9 2, 70

aperio to o p e n öffnen

amplus a m p l i u s = in a d d i t i o n , f u r t h e r

m a n e etenim aperto templo o p o r t e b a t facientes t r a ditas hostias i n t r o i r e

CA 2, 105

amplius = d a r ü b e r hinaus, weiter q u i d o p o r t e t amplius d i c i . . ? nihil a m p l i u s . . a g i t u r

CA 2, 5 9 2, 107

apertus a p e r t e = manifestly aperte =

an

offenkundig

CA 2, 6 6

aperte a deo salutem promeruerunt

animatus

[apparatio]

a n i m a t e d , h a v i n g a soul b e l e b t , beseelt p o r r o . . totius animati, m u l t o m a g i s dei, i n a n i m a t a s . . interdixit ima­ g i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

[CA 2, 93]

appareo CA 2, 113 = t o s h o w oneself, a p ­ p e a r — C A 2, 5 2 = to p r o v e oneself (to be) CA 2, 113 = sich zeigen, e r s c h e i n e n — CA 2, 5 2 = sich erweisen

annalis lasting o n e y e a r ein J a h r d a u e r n d comprehendere . . Graecum peregrinum eumque ann a l i [annuo G e l e n i u s ] tempore saginare

cuncta dapium praeparat i o n e [apparatione G e l e ­ nius] saginari

CA 2, 5 5

CA 2, 9 5

testis a u t e m d e u s iustitiae eius manifestus a p p a r u i t ita ambulasse, ut procul stantibus a p p a r e r e t , quasi s t e l l a e p e r t e r r a m xfiv rcopeiotv 7coio\)^ievcov

CA 2, 52 2, 113

A

CONCORDANCE

applico to j o i n ; sibi a p p l i c a r e = to a p p r o p r i ­ a t e (something) t o oneself a n s c h l i e ß e n ; sibi a p p l i c a r e = s i c h aneignen ut ipse r e g n u m iniuste sibimet applicaret

CA 2, 51

CA 2, 5 4 = to cast before (wild beasts)— CA 2, 6 8 = to i m p u t e (to s o m e o n e ) — CA 2, 8 9 = to cite (in a book) CA 2, 5 4 = (wilden T i e r e n ) v o r w e r ­ fen—CA 2, 6 8 = ( j e m a n d e m ) z u s c h i e ­ b e n — ^ 2, 8 9 = (in e i n e r Schrift) anführen CA 2, 5 4 2, 6 8 2, 8 9

[2,91]

apud

CA 2, 8 4

arguo t o refute widerlegen insensatos e n i m n o n verbis s e d o p e r i b u s d e c e t arguere

appono

elephanti. . relinquentes sibi a p p o s i t o s J u d a e o s seditionis causas nobis apponit alteram vero fabulam derogatione n o s t r a p l e n a m d e G r a e c i s a p p o s u i t (sc. Apion) p r o p o s i t a m [appositam G e l e nius] ei m e n s a m

templum auro argentoque plenum

457

CA 2, 102

asinus d o n k e y , ass Esel in h o c e n i m sacrario . . asini c a p u t collocasse J u ­ daeos c u m n o n sit d e t e r i o r asin u s . . et hircis et aliis, q u a e s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii h a e c igitur A p i o n d e b u i t r e s p i c e r e , nisi c o r asini ipse p o t i u s h a b u i s s e t nos i t a q u e asinis n e q u e honorem neque potestatem aliquam damus sunt a p u d nos asini. . one r a sibimet imposita sustinentes

CA 2, 8 0

2, 81

2, 8 5

2, 8 6

2, 8 7

CA 2, 79. 8 1 . 8 1 . 8 2 . 8 5 . 8 7 . 8 7 . [99] aspectus arbitror CA 2, 97 = t o think, s u p p o s e — C A 2, 8 6 = to r e g a r d as CA 2, 97 = m e i n e n , a n n e h m e n — C A 2, 8 6 = h a l t e n für eos q u i . . a crocodillis r a p i u n t u r , felices et d e o dignos arbitrantur sicut a r b i t r a t i sunt qui haec . . conscripserunt

CA 2, 8 6

vision Erscheinung, Vision aspectum terribilem [h.e. öeivfiv ö\j/iv (Niese)] c o n t e m p l a t u s est p r o h i b e n t e m se, u t illis n o c e r e t hominibus

CA 2, 5 4

2, 9 7 aspis viper, a d d e r

area

Viper, Natter

threshing—floor

crocodillis [crocodilis R ] et aspidibus

Tenne a d a r e a s a c c e d e n t e s (sc. asini) argentum silver Silber

CA 2, 8 7

CA 2, 8 6

assoleo assolet = it is t h e c u s t o m , it usually happens assolet = es ist B r a u c h , es pflegt (zu geschehen)

458 c a n i s , q u i a p u d ipsos (sc. Aegyptios) assolet coli

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

CA 2, 8 5

CA 2, 5 2 . 5 6 . 5 6 . 5 8 . 5 8 . 6 1 . 6 7 . 6 8 . 72. 7 2 . 76. 7 7 . 7 9 . 7 9 . 104. 110

assumo t o m a k e u s e of, use as a s u p p o r t z u Hilfe n e h m e n , als B e i s t a n d v e r ­ wenden assumere vero contra J u d a e o r u m o d i u m solacia [auxilia Gelenius] m a g n a cunctorum

autem

CA 2, 101

auxiliator h e l p e r , ally Helfer,

Verbündeter

s u p e r n o s auxiliatores [socios insuper nos G e l e n i u s ] suos et a m i c o s adgressus est

at

[auxilium]

CA 2, 110

maximo Caesare utimur teste solacii [solatii c o d d : auxilii G e l e n i u s ] a t q u e fidei assumere vero contra J u d a e o r u m o d i u m solacia [auxilia Gelenius] m a g n a cunctorum

atque CA 2, 5 3 . 6 1 . 6 6 . 7 3 . 9 3 . 9 6 . 104. 111 [ a t t i n e o ] —> a d t i n e o auctor

CA 2, 8 3

[CA 2, 61]

[2, 101]

originator, instigator U r h e b e r , Anstifter seditionis a u c t o r e s

B CA 2, 6 9

war

audio t o h e a r (learn) of (something)

Krieg

(von etwas) h ö r e n , (von etwas) erfahren c o n s u l e n t e m a ministris a d se a c c e d e n t i b u s audisse legem

bellum

CA 2, 9 4

augeo

adversus eum bellum . . suscepit bellum adversus Physcon e m gestum bello v i n c e n t e s d u m bellum Judaei contra Idumaeos haberent

CA 2, 5 2 2, 5 6 2, 8 2 2, 112

to further fördern nos autem Alexander quid e m introduxit, reges autem auxerunt

benefactor CA 2, 72

Wohltäter R o m a n o s o m n e s et b e n e factores suos i m p e r a t o r e s

aurum gold

CA 2, 57

beneficium

Gold illud c a p u t . . ex a u r o c o m positum templum auro argentoque plenum

benefactor

beneficence, kind act CA 2 , 8 0

aut CA 2, 7 3 . 8 7 . 8 8 . 8 8 . 1 0 1 . 108

2, 8 4

Wohltat,

Freundlichkeitserweis

haec . . inopinabilia beneficia bestia (wild) b e a s t (wildes) T i e r

CA 2, 9 4

A CONCORDANCE cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, o m n e s v e r o J u d a e o s . . c a p i e n s . . elep h a n t i s subiecisset, ut a b eis c o n c u l c a t i deficer e n t , et a d h o c e t i a m bestias ipsas inebriasset bestias . . colitis m u l t a diugentia nutrientes

CA 2, 5 3

blasphemia slander, abuse Schmähung, Lästerung de nostro templo blasphemias c o m p o n e n t e s incongruas nulla potest contra nos blasphemia provenire

canibus? ( R e i n a c h ) ] e t hircis et aliis, q u a e s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii i m p u d e n t i a m canis

2, 6 6

CA 2, 79

2, 8 8

459

2, 8 5

capio CA 2, 5 3 = t o seize, c a p t u r e — C A 2 , 60 = to take, capture CA 2 , 5 3 = ergreifen, g e f a n g e n n e h ­ m e n — C A 2, 6 0 = e i n n e h m e n , e r o b e r n cum . . pugnare non praeCA 2, 5 3 sumeret, omnes vero J u daeos . . capiens nudos atque vinctos elephantis subiecisset Alexandria a Caesare capta 2, 6 0 caput

bonus

head

CA 2, 76 = g o o d , w o r t h y — CA 2, 7 4 = g o o d , sensible, right CA 2, 76 = g u t , v e r d i e n t — C A 2, 7 4 = gut, sinnvoll, richtig Graecis . . b o n u m esse cred i t u r i m a g i n e s instituere aliis . . h o n o r i b u s p o s t d e u m c o l e n d o s . . viros bonos

CA 2, 7 4

Kopf in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o . . asini c a p u t collocasse Judaeos illud c a p u t i n v e n t u m e x auro compositum

CA 2, 8 0

2, 8 0

2, 7 6 carus dear lieb

C

concubina . . sua carissima . . supplicante

calumniator slanderer

casus

Verleumder Apion a u t e m o m n i u m calumniator

misadventure, misfortune CA 2, 5 6

lamp-stand, candelabrum

CA 2, 8 2

causa

Leuchter, Kandelaber CA 2, 106

canis dog Hund c u m n o n sit deterior asinus furonibus [fiironibus vid. c o r r u p t u m . A n felibus?

Unglücksfall, U n g l ü c k c u m varii casus n o s t r a m civitatem . . vexaverint

candelabrum

altare mensa turibulum candelabrum

CA 2, 5 5

[CA 2, 81]

CA 2, 6 8 . 9 2 = r e a s o n , c a u s e ; p r o p t e r c a u s a m (CA 2, 93) = b e c a u s e of—CA 2, 75 = m a t t e r , p r a c t i c e CA 2 , 6 8 . 9 2 = G r u n d , U r s a c h e ; p r o p t e r c a u s a m (CA 2, 93) = w e g e n — CA 2, 75 = S a c h e seditionis c a u s a s n o b i s a p ponit p o r r o . . c a u s a m [h.e. nçtày(Niese)] n e q u e d e o

CA 2, 6 8 2, 7 5

460

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

n e q u e hominibus util e m . . fabricari [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)] q u a e esset c a u s a c i b o r u m eius d u m peragraret provinciam p r o p t e r vitae cau­ s a m [parandi victus causa Gelenius]

criptor Gelenius] 2, 9 2 2, 9 3

cibus food Speise q u a e esset c a u s a c i b o r u m eius cibum aut potum ciborum opulentissimam claritatem

cedo to give (allow) r o o m R a u m g e b e n , R a u m lessen nullam seditionem adversus n o s g e s s e r u n t , s e d a n t i q u i s cessere sollemnitatibus

[chronographus

CA 2, 92 2, 108 2, 110

circa CA 2, 6 9

CA 2, 5 2 . 5 6 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 5 8 . 6 0 . 6 1 . 6 7 . 9 0 . 9 9 . 9 9 . 105 circuitus circuit

celebro

Umkreis

to celebrate, solemnize feiern, feierlich b e g e h e n hanc diem . . celebrare ex impensa c o m m u n i o m n i u m J u d a e o r u m talia celebramus

CA 2, 5 5 2, 77

q u a t t u o r . . h a b u i t in circuitu p o r t i c u s (sc. t e m plum)

CA 2, 103

circumamictus clothed, robed bekleidet, a n g e t a n

certamen battle; navale c e r t a m e n = naval battle Schlacht; navale certamen = See­ schlacht

principes sacerdotum prop r i a stola c i r c u m a m i c t i

CA 2, 104

circumasto in n a v a l i c e r t a m i n e

CA 2, 5 9

certus fixed, a p p o i n t e d ; c e r t e = surely, o b v i ­ ously b e s t i m m t , festgesetzt; c e r t e = sicher­ lich, offensichtlich a n certe p r o p t e r e a n o n vos omnes dicimus Aegyp­ tios . . ? certe ex r e b u s [ex rebus corr u p t a (Reinach)] initia sumens haec implere n o n valuit fit t a r n e n o b s e r v a t i o p a r t i c u l a r i t e r p e r dies c e r t o s

CA 2, 6 6

2, 8 8

malis e u m tibus

circumastan-

CA 2, 9 6

circumpono t o p l a c e (a w o o d e n f r a m e ) (oneself)

around

(sich ein h ö l z e r n e s Gestell) u m l e g e n

2, 108

[chronographus] Castor temporum

t o s t a n d all a r o u n d , s u r r o u n d ; m a l a c i r c u m a s t a n t i a = critical situation ringsherum stehen, umringen; mala circumastantia = mißliche Lage

Z a b i d o n v e r o fecisse q u o d dam machinamentum l i g n e u m et c i r c u m p o suisse sibi

CA 2, 113

civilitas cons-

[CA 2, 84]

ius civilitatis = r i g h t of citizenship ius civilitatis = B ü r g e r r e c h t

A d o n e e e n i m G r a e c i fuerunt et M a c e d o n e s h a n c civit a t e m [ G e l e n i u s : civilitatem c o d d . ] h a b e n t e s c u m . . n o n o p o r t u n e ius e i u s civilitatis [civitatis Reinach] optineant Aegyptiis n e q u e r e g u m q u i s q u a m v i d e t u r ius civilitatis [civitatis R e i ­ n a c h ] fuisse largitus

CONCORDANCE

[CA 2, 69]

2,71

2, 72

mendacii superfluitas, q u a m ex ipsa re cognoscere v a l d e facillimum est

CA 2, 9 8

cogo 2, 6 9

to compel zwingen tradere e u m exercitum . . et se sequi coegit (Romani) subiectos non cogunt patria iura transcendere

Stadt

CA 2, 5 9 2, 7 3

CA 2, 5 3 colligo 2, 6 9

Passive: t o a s s e m b l e Passiv: sich v e r s a m m e l n

[2, 71]

ut a d has hostias o m n e s J u d a e i colligerentur

CA 2, 100

colloco [2, 72]

t o set u p aufstellen

2, 8 2

in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o . . asini c a p u t collocasse Judaeos

CA 2, 8 0

2, 112 colo to revere, worship—CA honour

claritas splendour, magnificence, g r a n d e u r Glanz, Pracht, Großartigkeit

schließen

CA 2, 108

CA 2, 6 5

city

to close

a p r a e c e d e n t i b u s claves templi. . pereipiunt

to r e c o g n i z e

civitas

claudo

Schlüssel

erkennen

Bürger

eiborum opulentissimam claritatem

key

cognosce*

citizen

o m n e s v e r o J u d a e o s in civitate positos d o n e e e n i m G r a e c i fuerunt et M a c e d o n e s h a n c civit a t e m [ G e l e n i u s : civilitatem c o d d . ] h a b e n t e s c u m . , n o n o p o r t u n e ius e i u s civilitatis [civitatis Reinach] optineant Aegyptiis n e q u e r e g u m q u i s q u a m v i d e t u r ius civilitatis [civitatis R e i ­ n a c h ] fuisse largitus c u m varii c a s u s n o s t r a m civitatem . . v e x a v e r i n t in a l i q u a civitate I d u maeorum

CA 2, 105

clavis

civis

q u o m o d o e r g o . . si s u n t cives, e o s d e m d e o s . . n o n colunt? Apionis similes A l e x a n d r i n o r u m . . cives

d u m clauderetur templum

461

CA 2, 110

2, 7 6 =

to

v e r e h r e n , a n b e t e n — C A 2, 7 6 = e h r e n q u o m o d o ergo . . eosdem deos quos Alexandrini n o n colunt? bestias . . colitis m u l t a diligentia nutrientes aliis . . h o n o r i b u s p o s t d e u m c o l e n d o s . . viros bonos

CA 2, 6 5

2, 6 6 2, 7 6

462 quare nos eosdem deos c u m aliis n o n c o l i m u s in h o c e n i m sacrario . . asini c a p u t collocasse J u d a e o s et e u m c o l e r e a c d i g n u m facere t a n t a religione c a n i s , q u i a p u d ipsos (sc. Aegyptios) assolet coli quendam eorum q u i . . Apollinem colebat

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG 2, 79 2, 8 0

2, 8 5 2, 112

2, 78

compello to impel, compel antreiben, zwingen

comedo to eat fressen licet a d a r e a s a c c e d e n t e s (sc. asini) c o m e d a n t

r u p t a . P r o nàai legerit Tcaioi? (Reinach)] p e r a gamus haec itaque communiter satisfactio p o s i t a sit a d versus Apionem pro his, q u a e d e A l e x a n d r i a dicta sunt

CA 2, 8 7

alios a u t e m d e m e n s [deiciens R ] et a d m a l a g e r e n d a compellens [alios— compellens seel. Boysen]

CA 2, 5 8

competo commoror

CA 2 , 7 4 = t o b e c o n n e c t e d (with s o m e o n e ) — c o m p e t e n s = suitable, a p ­ propriate

t o live wohnen cunctis in A l e x a n d r i a c o m morantibus J u d a e i s in A l e x a n d r i a c o m morantibus

CA 2, 6 3 2, 6 3

communis c o m m o n — i n c o m m u n i = in g e n e r a l , o n the whole; ex c o m m u n i = jointly; communiter = altogether g e m e i n s a m — i n c o m m u n i = i m all­ gemeinen, überhaupt; ex c o m m u n i = g e m e i n s c h a f t l i c h ; c o m m u n i t e r = ins­ gesamt cui nihil o m n i n o iniustitiae . . defuit vel c i r c a generis necessarios . . vel in c o m m u n i c o n t r a R o ­ manos omnes m a r i t u m et p a r e n t e m c o m m u n i u m filiorum p r o p t e r e a n o n vos o m n e s d i c i m u s A e g y p t i o s , et neque communiter homines ex impensa c o m m u n i o m n i u m J u d a e o r u m talia celebramus c u m nullas alias hostias e x communi neque pro filiis [neque pro filiis c o r -

CA 2, 57

2, 5 9 2, 6 6

2, 77

2, 77

CA 2, 7 4 = (zu j e m a n d e m ) in Bezie­ h u n g stehen—competens = passend, angemessen illa q u i d e m p o e n a m subiit competentem q u i d a m vero etiam nihil sibi competentium sumunt imagines

CA 2, 61 2, 74

compono CA 2, 8 0 = t o f a b r i c a t e , m a n u f a c ­ t u r e — C A 2, 7 9 . 8 8 = t o c o m p o s e CA 2, 8 0 = z u s a m m e n s e t z e n , anfer­ t i g e n — CA 2, 79. 8 8 = verfassen de nostro templo blasphemias c o m p o n e n t e s incongruas illud c a p u t . . ex a u r o c o m positum aut o m n i u m gurdissimus fuit A p i o n a d c o m p o n e n d u m v e r b a fallacia m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r t e m p l a transire q u a m sacerdotibus scelesta v e r b a confingere [componere B] compraehendo t o seize ergreifen

CA 2, 79

2, 8 0 2, 8 8

[2, 89]

[comprehendo]

463

A CONCORDANCE

c o m p r a e h e n d e r e [comprehendere N a b e r ] q u i d e m Graecum peregrinum compraehensio

CA 2, 9 5

[comprehensio]

seizure Ergreifung

cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, omnes vero Judaeos . . capiens . . elephantis subiecisset, ut a b eis conculcati deficerent

CA 2, 5 3

confero

h o m i n i s . . Graeci comp r a e h e n s i o n e m [comprehensionem N a b e r ]

CA 2, 110

to bestow (honours) (Ehrungen) erweisen honoribus . . qui ex necessitate et v i o l e n t i a c o n feruntur

comprobo to a c k n o w l e d g e anerkennen

CA 2, 7 3

confido

epistulis C a e s a r i s A u g u s t i , quibus nostra mérita comprobantur

CA 2, 61

to have confidence Vertrauen haben . i u b e n t e r e g e , u t confideret

CA 2, 9 2

[compromitto] sed turpe est; historiae e n i m [enim o m . Sobius] v e r a m n o t i t i a m se [si S o b i u s ] proferre grammaticus n o n promisit [compromisit c o n i . N i e s e : non possit Sobius]?

[CA 2, 109]

confingo to i m p u t e ( s o m e t h i n g b a d t o s o m e o n e ) ( j e m a n d e m Übles) a n d i c h t e n m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r t e m p l a transire q u a m sac e r d o t i b u s scelesta v e r b a c o n f i n g e r e [componere B]

CA 2, 8 9

concedo confusio to give t o , yield t o

confusion,

n a c h g e b e n , z u W i l l e n sein

disorder

Verwirrung, Unordnung concubina . . supplicante ne tantam impietatem p e r a g e r e t , ei concessit

CA 2, 5 5 p r o p t e r confusiones ternporum congrego

concordia concord

Passive: t o a s s e m b l e

Eintracht

Passiv: sich v e r s a m m e l n

habere concordiam

CA 2, 6 8

c o n g r e g a t i in t e m p l u m

concubine

conspiracy

Konkubine

Verschwörung CA 2, 5 5

renovata coniuratione coniux

conculco to t r a m p l e d o w n niedertrampeln

CA 2, 108

coniuratio

concubina

concubina . . sua cariss i m a . . supplicante

CA 2, 6 9

wife Gattin

CA 2, 9 9

464

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

cuncti J u d a e i . . e o r u m q u e c o n i u g e s , c u m essent a b o m n i pollutione m u n d a e

CA 2, 104

conspicio t o p e r c e i v e , see erblicken, sehen

conor

a n u l l o conspici

CA 2, 9 3

to attempt constantia

versuchen derogare nobis c o n a t u s est

Apion

CA 2, 7 3

conscribo to record, take d o w n , write d o w n aufzeichnen, aufschreiben, nieder­ schreiben iusta et v e r a c i a d e nostris et d e t e m p l o conscribere q u i h a e c a d illius g r a t i a m conscripserunt inventum hominem, quie u m q u e fuit, n o n e n i m s u o n o m i n e conscripsit q u a e o m n i a et in lege conscripta sunt

CA 2, 9 0 2, 9 7 2, 100

2, 106

conscriptor historian; t e m p o r u m conscriptor chronicler Historiker; t e m p o r u m conscriptor Chronist multi et digni conscriptores s u p e r h o c q u o q u e testantur Castor temporum conscriptor [chronographus Gelenius]

= =

CA 2, 8 4

2, 8 4

steadfastness, p e r s e v e r a n c e Standhaftigkeit,

Beharrlichkeit

nequaquam populo Macedonicam habente constantiam neque prudentiam Graecam

CA 2, 70

constituo CA 2, 5 5 . 6 8 = to settle—CA 2, 9 4 = t o fix, a p p o i n t ; CA 2, 6 2 . 67 = to e n a c t (rules, laws) CA 2, 5 5 . 6 8 = a n s i e d e l n — CA 2, 9 4 = festsetzen, b e s t i m m e n ; CA 2, 6 2 . 6 7 = ( B e s t i m m u n g e n , Gesetze) erlassen J u d a e i in [in ins. Boysen] A l e x a n d r i a [Alexandriae Sobius] constituti testimonia . . q u a e a senatu constituta sunt in legibus a p r i n c i p i o c o n stitutis . . p e r m a n s e r u n t J u d a e o s in A l e x a n d r i a constitutos q u o d a m t e m p o r e constituto ut s e c u n d u m q u a s d a m h o r a s s a c e r d o t e s ingredi c o n s t i t u t u m sit

CA 2, 5 5

2, 62 2, 67 2, 6 8 2, 9 4 2, 105

construetio conservo

construction

to k e e p , p r e s e r v e

Anlage

bewahren, erhalten m a x i m a m . . eis (sc. J u d a e i s ) fidem o l i m a regibus d a t a m conservaverunt

CA 2, 6 4

CA 2, 102

consulo to question fragen

consisto

c o n s u l e n t e m a ministris a d se a c c e d e n t i b u s audisse legem

t o r e m a i n , b e faithful verbleiben, beharren l e g i b u s . . i n q u i b u s sine fine c o n s i s t i m u s

c o n s t r u e t i o n e m templi nostri

CA 2, 8 2

2, 9 4

465

A CONCORDANCE [consul tum] senatu eiusque d o g m a t i b u s [consultis G e l e n i u s ]

CA [2, 61]

h a e c igitur A p i o n d e b u i t r e s p i c e r e , nisi c o r asini ipse p o t i u s h a b u i s s e t corpus

contemplor to see

body, corpse

s e h e n , erblicken

K ö r p e r Leiche

aspectum terribilem [h.e. 8ewTiv ö\|/iv (Niese)] c o n t e m p l a t u s est p r o h i b e n t e m se, u t illis n o c e r e t hominibus

CA 2, 5 4

occidere . . e u m h o m i n e m eiusque corpus sacrificare

CA 2, 9 5

[corripio] d i r e p t u m [correptum G e l e nius] se s u b i t o a b alienigenis h o m i n i b u s

contendo to c o n t e n d streiten q u o m o d o . . inter altemt r o s p r o e l i o . . d e relig i o n e contenditis?

CA 2, 8 5

[CA 2, 9 3 ]

corrumpo CA 2, 6 5

to destroy zugrunde

richten

Antoniumque corrumpens amatoriis rebus

contingo

CA 2, 5 8

to h a p p e n , o c c u r cotidianus

geschehen, v o r k o m m e n quem enim horum non contigit a l i q u a n d o c i r c a n o s p e r e g r i n a r i . .?

CA 2, 9 9

continuus uninterrupted, perpetual, regular u n u n t e r b r o c h e n , unablässig, regel­ mäßig facimus . . c o n t i n u a sacrificia

CA 2, 77

contra CA 2, 5 7 . 6 1 . 8 8 . 9 5 . 1 0 1 . 112 contrarius opposite; in c o n t r a r i u m e v e n i r e = t o turn into the opposite entgegengesetzt; in c o n t r a r i u m eve­ nire = ins G e g e n t e i l u m s c h l a g e n in c o n t r a r i u m q u a e p r a e paraverat evenerunt

CA 2, 5 3

[quotidianus]

daily; cotidianis d i e b u s = e v e r y d a y täglich; c o t i d i a n i s d i e b u s = alltäglich cotidianis [ L B C P : cottidianis R : quottidianis ed. p r . : quotidianis N a b e r ] d i e b u s . . talia c e l e b r a mus

CA 2, 77

credo CA 2 , 113 = t o give c r e d e n c e — C A 2 , 7 4 = to r e g a r d as CA 2, 113 = G l a u b e n s c h e n k e n — C A 2, 7 4 = h a l t e n für G r a e c i s . . b o n u m esse c r e d i t u r i m a g i n e s instituere et credidisse o m n e m multitudinem Judaeorum

CA 2, 7 4

2, 113

cresco to increase greater

(in n u m b e r ) ,

become

(an Z a h l ) z u n e h m e n , g r ö ß e r w e r d e n cor heart Herz

cum vero multitudo Aeg y p t i o r u m crevisset

CA 2, 6 9

466

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

crocodillus

d a e o r u m o d i u m solacia [auxilia Gelenius] m a g n a cunctorum cuncti J u d a e i

crocodile Krokodil crocodillis [crocodilis R ] et aspidibus q u i a b istis (sc. aspidibus) m o r d e n t u r et a c r o c o ­ dillis [crocodilis R ] r a p i untur

2, 104

CA 2, 8 6 cur 2, 8 6

CA 2, 6 8 . 9 2 . 100 custodia supervision, c o n t r o l Aufsicht, K o n t r o l l e

crudelis cruel grausam eo q u o d circa o m n e s crudelis et infidelis e x t a r e t (sc. C l e o p a t r a ) huiusmodi ergo fabula . . impudentia crudeli redundat

CA 2, 6 0

2, 97

fluminis c u s t o d i a m fluminis c u s t o d i a m totiusq u e c u s t o d i a e [provinciae c o n i . Niese] q u a t t u o r . . p o r t i c u s , et h a r u m singulae prop r i a m . . h a b u e r e custo­ diam

2, 103

custodio

culpo

t o g u a r d , furnish p r o t e c t i o n

to accuse, m a k e reproaches beschuldigen, Vorwürfe c u r o m n e s n o s c u l p a t . .? cum

CA 2, 6 4 2, 6 4

schützen, Schutz gewähren

machen CA 2, 6 8

[quum]

n o s . . R o m a n i vero semper custodire dignati sunt

(conjunction)

D

(Konjunktion) CA 2, 5 3 . 5 6 . 5 9 . 6 5 . 6 6 . 6 9 . 7 1 . 7 3 . 7 7 . [79.] 8 1 . 8 2 . 8 3 . 104

daps food Speise

cum

CA 2, 5 3 . 6 8 . 7 9 . 9 2 . 101

m e n s a m . . dapibus plenam cuncta dapium praeparat i o n e saginari

cunctus

de

(conjunction) (Konjunktion)

e a c h , e v e r y — P l u r a l : all i n s g e s a m t , j e d e r , j e g l i c h — P l u r a l : alle cunctis in A l e x a n d r i a c o m morantibus c u n c t i s scilicet u t e n t i b u s malis moribus Aegyptiorum templo a p u d cunctos homines nominato cuncta dapium praeparatione saginari assumere vero contra J u -

CA 2, 72

CA 2, 6 3 2, 70

CA 2, 91 2, 9 3

CA 2, 6 3 . 6 5 . 7 8 . 7 9 . 7 9 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 8 9 . 89. 89. 90. 90. 96. 96 debeo to h a v e t o , b e o b l i g e d to m ü s s e n , verpflichtet sein

2, 79 2, 9 3 2, 101

J u d a e o s accusare p r a e s u m p sit, c u m eos l a u d a r e d e buerit c u m potius debuerit admirari

CA 2, 5 6

2, 73

A n e q u a q u a m d e b u e r a t increpare h a e c igitur A p i o n d e b u i t respicere p a u c o s i a m dies d e vita [de vita Boysen: debita c o d d . : debitos G e l e n i u s ] sibimet superesse

2, 81 2, 8 5 [2, 96]

[debrio] cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, omnes vero Judaeos . . capiens . . elephantis subiecisset, u t a b eis c o n c u l c a t i deficer e n t , et a d h o c e t i a m bestias ipsas inebriasset [ed. V e n . 1510: debriasset codd.]

[CA 2, 53]

defero CA 94 CA CA

2, 108 = t o c o n v e y , b r i n g — CA 2, = t o p r o v i d e , give 2, 108 = hinschaffen, b r i n g e n — 2, 9 4 = verschaffen, b e r e i t e n

p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia bénéficia p r o d i d i s s e et d e t u l i s s e [bénéficia visa attulisse G e ­ lenius] l a e t i t i a m nulla re, q u a e ad cibum a u t p o t u m a d t i n e a t , in t e m p l o [templum G e l e ­ nius] d e l a t a

CA 2, 9 4

2, 108

deficio to meet one's death, perish zu T o d e k o m m e n ,

deceo d e c e t = it is r e q u i r e d , n e c e s s a r y d e c e t = es g e h ö r t sich, m a n insensatos e n i m n o n verbis sed o p e r i b u s d e c e t a r guere

467

CONCORDANCE

muß

CA 2, 102

umkommen

cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, omnes vero Judaeos . . capiens . . elephantis subiecisset, u t a b eis c o n c u l c a t i d e ficerent

CA 2, 5 3

[deicio] deduco

alios a u t e m d e m e n s [deiciens R ] et a d m a l a g e r e n d a c o m p e l l e n s [alios - compellens secl. B o y s e n ]

to take (to), c o n d u c t (hin) b r i n g e n , geleiten d i r e p t u m se . . a t q u e d e d u c t u m a d t e m p l u m et i n c l u s u m illic deductum ad q u a n d a m silvam q u o m o d o e u m in s u a m patriam rex n o n c u m p o m p a deduxit

CA 2, 9 3 deinde 2, 9 5 2, 101

demo t o t a k e a w a y (?)

to defend, take u n d e r o n e ' s p r o t e c t i o n verteidigen, in S c h u t z n e h m e n CA 2, 9 0

alios a u t e m d e m e n s [deiciens R ] et a d m a l a g e r e n d a c o m p e l l e n s [alios - com­ pellens secl. B o y s e n ]

CA 2, 5 8

denique CA 2, 7 4 . 106

defensio defence

denomino

Verteidigung t a m q u a m i l l i s . . defensione Apionis indigentibus

CA 2, 8 2 . 9 4 . 9 6 . 112

w e g n e h m e n (?)

defendo

defendere sacrilegum r e g e m

[CA 2, 5 8 ]

CA 2, 7 3

to call, give t h e n a m e (of s o m e o n e ) benennen, den N a m e n (jemandes) angeben

468

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

concubina . . quam . . Hirenen denominant

CA 2, 5 5

to d i s p a r a g e , c a l u m n i a t e herabsetzen, verleumden

depalo

derogare nobis Apion con a t u s est

to reveal aufdecken h o c affirmât fuisse d e p a latum

CA 2, 8 0

desero to a b a n d o n , give u p

t o p a i n t ; f i g u r a m alicuius d e p i n g e r e = t o p a i n t a p o r t r a i t of s o m e o n e m a l e n ; figuram alicuius d e p i n g e r e = ein Bild v o n j e m a n d e m m a l e n CA 2, 7 4

fidem, q u a m h a b u i t circa reges, n e q u a q u a m in necessitate d e s e r u i t

CA 2, 52

despicio to d i s d a i n verachten

depopulor to p l u n d e r plündern p a t e r n o s q u e d e o s et sepulera progenitorum depop u l a t a est

CA 2, 73

i m Stich lassen, a u f g e b e n

depingo

p a t r u m et u x o r u m filiorumq u e figuras d e p i n g e n t e s

derogo

CA 2, 5 8

porro . . causam neque deo neque hominibus utilem despiciens . . fabricari [porro -fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

desum to lack

depraedatio

fehlen

plundering cui nihil o m n i n o titiae . . defuit

Plünderung n e q u e i u s t a m fecit t e m p l i depraedationem

inius-

CA 2, 57

CA 2, 8 3 deterior worse

derideo

m i n d e r gut, schlechter

to deride verspotten t a m q u a m piissimos d e r i d e t (sc. nos)

CA 2, 112

derisio

to injure

Verspottung

Eintrag tun, schaden CA 2, 8 3

derogatio

detrahentes nobis . . mentiti s u n t per ea . . mala . . nobis detrahere temptaverunt

disparagement, calumny Herabsetzung, Verleumdung fabulam derogatione nostra plenam

CA 2, 81

detraho

derision

nec aliquid d i g n u m derisione illic i n v e n i t

c u m n o n sit d e t e r i o r asin u s . . et hircis et aliis, q u a e s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii

CA 2, 8 9

deus god, G o d Gott

CA 2, 9 0 2, 111

A

testis a u t e m d e u s iustitiae eius manifestus a p p a r u i t aperte a deo salutem p r o meruerunt p a t e r n o s q u e d e o s et sepulera progenitorum depop u l a t a est q u o m o d o ergo . . eosdem deos quos Alexandrini n o n colunt? porro . . causam neque deo neque hominibus utilem . . fabricari [porro - fabricari corrupta (Niese)] p o r r o . . totius animati, multo magis dei, inanim a t a s . . interdixit i m a ­ gines fabricari [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a Niese)] aliis . . h o n o r i b u s p o s t d e u m c o l e n d o s . . viros bonos quare nos eosdem deos c u m aliis n o n c o l i m u s f u r o n i b u s [furonibus v i d . c o r r u p t u m . A n felibus? canibus? ( R e i n a c h ) ] e t hircis et aliis, q u a e [qui R et e d . p r . ] s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii eos q u i . . a crocodillis r a p i u n t u r , felices et d e o dignos arbitrantur G r a e c o r u m deos i m p i u s et n i h i l o m i n u s sine deo Apollinem d e u m Doriensium

CA 2 , 5 2 2, 55 2, 58

2, 65

2, 75

2, 7 5

2, 76

2 , 79 2, 81

2, 8 6

2, 9 6 2, 9 8 2, 112

s a g e n , s c h r e i b e n ; CA 2 , 112 = a n g e ­ b e n , n e n n e n — b e z e i c h n e n als, n e n n e n quid oportet amplius dici . .? quemadmodum dicit Apion a n certe p r o p t e r e a n o n v o s omnes dieimus Aegyp­ tios . .? q u a e d e Alexandria dicta sunt a d h a e c igitur p r i u s e q u i d e m d i c o [dico o m . e d . p r . : respondeo ins. G e l e ­ nius] omnes dicunt. . Antioc h u m . . expoliasse t e m plum d e q u o h o c d i c e r e sat erit q u a e in f u t u r o [faturis e d . p r . ] s u n t [Niese: essent c o d d . ] d i c e n d a [quaedicenda = xo \ieXXov priOriaeaOai (Boysen)] (Apion) dixit A n t i o c h u m in t e m p l o invenisse l e c t u m et h o m i n e m i u b e n t e r e g e , u t . . diceret, quis esset refert (sc. A p i o n ) e u m dixisse q u i d e r g o A p i o n e m esse d i e i m u s . .? cuius h o m i n i s n o m e n dicit

CA 2 , 5 9 2, 60 2, 6 6

2, 78 2, 81

2, 8 4

2, 8 9 2, 90

2,91

2, 92 2, 9 6 2 , 109 2 , 112

[dicitur P(?) e t e d . p r . ] Z a b i d o n [Zabidus G e l e ­ nius] dies day; mediante die = at n o o n

dexter d e x t r a = right h a n d dextra = rechte H a n d , Rechte p r o c i d e n t e m a d eius g e n u a e x t e n s a d e x t r a [dextera ed. pr.] poposcisse libertatem

469

CONCORDANCE

CA 2, 9 2

dico t o s a y — t o s a y (as a n a u t h o r i n a book), write; CA 2 , 112 = t o give (a name), n a m e — t o designate as, n a m e s a g e n — ( a l s A u t o r in e i n e r Schrift)

Tag; mediante mittags

die = a m

u n d e recte h a n c d i e m J u daei . . celebrare noscuntur cotidianis diebus . . talia celebramus p a u e o s i a m dies d e vita [de vita Boysen: debita c o d d . : debitos G e l e n i u s ] s i b i m e t superesse fit t a r n e n o b s e r v a t i o p a r t i c u l a r i t e r p e r dies c e r t o s

Mittag, 2, 55

2 , 77 2, 9 6

2, 108

470

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

m e d i a n t e die

2, 108

differentia difference, v a r i e t y Unterschied, Verschiedenheit t a n t a e differentiae o p i n i o num

2, 6 7

nec aliquid d i g n u m d e n sione illic i n v e n i t multi et digni conscriptores eos q u i . . a crocodillis r a p i u n t u r , felices et d e o d i g n o s [ S o b i u s : digni codd.] arbitrantur

2, 8 3 2, 8 4 2, 8 6

diligentia dignitas

diligence, c i r c u m s p e c t i o n

honour

Sorgfalt, U m s i c h t

Ehre q u i b u s n o s et i m p e r a t o r e s et p o p u l u m R o m a n o rum dignitatibus ampliamus

CA 2, 76

to v a l u e , love s c h ä t z e n , lieben

to be pleased to geruhen CA 2, 72

[ d i g n o s c o ] —» d i n o s c o dignus CA 2, 8 6 = w o r t h y , e s t e e m e d ; CA 2, 8 0 b = w o r t h (a s u m o f m o n e y ) ; CA 2, 8 3 = d e s e r v i n g ( s o m e t h i n g ) — CA 2, 8 4 = h o n o u r a b l e , r e s p e c t e d , t r u s t w o r t h y — d i g n u m facere a l i q u e m a l i q u a re (CA 2, 80a) = to d e e m s o m e o n e w o r t h y of a t h i n g , h o n o u r s o m e one by something CA 2, 8 6 = w ü r d i g , w e r t ; CA 2, 8 0 b = (eine G e l d s u m m e ) w e r t ; CA 2, 8 3 = (etwas) v e r d i e n e n d - C A 2, 8 4 = e h r e n wert, angesehen, glaubwürdig—dign u m facere a l i q u e m a l i q u a r e (CA 2, 8 0 a ) = j e m a n d e n e i n e r S a c h e für würdig halten, j e m a n d e n durch etwas ehren in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o . . asini c a p u t collocasse J u d a e o s et e u m c o l e r e a c d i g n u m facere t a n t a religione illud c a p u t . . e x a u r o c o m p o s i t u m , multis p e c u n i i s dignum

CA 2, 6 6

diligo

dignor

nos . . R o m a n i vero semper custodire dignati sunt

bestias . . colitis m u l t a diligentia nutrientes

CA 2, 8 0

maritos suos, qui etiam d i l e x e r u n t e a r n [qui-eam vel c o r r u p t u m , vel a b ignaro interpretescriptum qui verba graeca ( e . g . Kai TO\)Ç a ù r n v epeovxaç) n o n intellexit (Reinach)] servos diligentes hoc faciunt dinosco

CA 2, 57

2, 74

[dignosco]

to discern erkennen n o n e n i m circa solos G r a e cos discordia l e g u m [ p o s t legum, nostrarum desideratur (Reinach)] esse dinoscitur [dignosätur R C et e d . p r . ]

CA 2, 9 9

diripio to seize (for t h e p u r p o s e of a b d u c t i o n ) (zum Z w e c k d e r Entfuhrung) ergreifen d i r e p t u m [correptum G e l e nius] se subito a b alienigenis h o m i n i b u s

CA 2, 9 3

discordia 2, 8 0

difference,

discrepance

Unterschied, Diskrepanz n o n e n i m circa solos G r a e -

CM 2, 9 9

471

A CONCORDANCE

cos discordia l e g u m [post legum, nostrarum d e s i d e r a t u r (Reinach)] esse dinoscitur

donec CA 2, 6 9 dum

discutio

CA 2, 7 9 . 8 0 . 9 3 . 1 0 1 . 105. 112

to e x a m i n e in detail im einzelnen untersuchen discutere v e r i t a t e m

E CA 2, 111

diversus e diverso fieri = to b e c o m e t h e opposite e diverso fieri = u m g e k e h r t e i n t r e t e n e diverso n a m q u e f a c t u m est q u o d n o b i s i m p r o perare praesumunt

CA 2, 71

e, e x CA 2, 5 4 . 5 5 . 7 1 . 7 3 . 7 7 . 7 7 . 8 0 . 8 8 . 9 5 . 9 8 . [112] edico to a n n o u n c e , claim verkünden, behaupten in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o A p i o n p r a e s u m p s i t e d i c e r e asini c a p u t collocasse J u d a e o s

do

CA 2, 8 0

to give, g r a n t geben, erweisen m a x i m a m . . eis (sc. J u d a eis) fidem . . a r e g i b u s datam suscipiunt h o n o r e s sicut d a r e offerentes p i u m atq u e l e g i t i m u m est nos itaque asinis n e q u e honorem neque potestatem aliquam damus

effabilis CA 2, 6 4

aussprechbar, sagbar 2, 7 3

2, 8 6

CA 2, 8 2

effusion; efïusio sanguinis = b l o o d s h e d A u s g i e ß e n ; effusio s a n g u i n i s = Blutvergießen

d e c r e e (of t h e R o m a n S e n a t e ) B e s c h l u ß (des r ö m i s c h e n Senats)

effusionem s a n g u i n i s

CA 2, 9 9

CA 2, 61 [egeo] u t a d v e r s u s solos G r a e c o s renovata coniuratione p e r effusionem s a n g u i n i s a g e r e m u s [ S o b i u s : egeremus L B R C et e d . p r . ]

dominus master Gebieter q u i h o c Privilegium a d o minis impetrasse [Boysen ex ed. V e n e t . 1510: ad omnes imperasse codd.] noscuntur etiam principibus ac d o minis h u n c h o n o r e m p r a e bere

purissimam pietatem, de q u a nihil n o b i s est a p u d a l i o s effabile [ineffabile Reinach] emisio

dogma

senatu eiusque dogmatibus [consultis G e l e n i u s ]

utterable, speakable

[CA 2, 99]

CA 2, 71 egestas lack Mangel 2, 74

egestate p e c u n i a r u m a d h o c accessit propter egestatem pecuniarum

CA 2, 8 3 2, 9 0

472

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

elephantus elephant Elefant cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, omnes vero J u daeos . . capiens nudos a t q u e vinctos elephantis subiecisset elephanti . . i m p e t u facto . . multos . . interemerunt

CA 2, 5 3

2, 5 4

6 6 . 6 9 . 70. 7 3 . 74. 74. 74. 74. 7 5 . 76. 76. 7 7 . 7 9 . 7 9 . 79. 8 0 . 8 0 . [80.] 80. 8 1 . 8 1 . 82. 82. 82. 82. 83. 83. 8 4 . 8 4 . 8 4 . [84.] 8 5 . 8 6 . 8 6 . 8 6 . 8 7 . 87. 90. 90. 90. 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 92. 92. 92. 93. 93. 93. 94. 94. 94. 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 6 . 9 8 . 9 9 . 100. 1 0 1 . 102. 103. 105. 106. 108. 108. 108. 108. [110.] 110. 100. 110. 1 1 1 . 113. 1 1 3 . 113. 113 etenim

enim CA 2, 5 4 . 6 3 . 6 9 . 7 3 . 8 0 . 8 5 . 9 0 . 9 8 . 9 9 . 9 9 . 100. 102. [103.] 107. 108. 109. 112 eo CA 2, 5 5 . 6 0 . 6 8

etiam CA 2, 5 3 . 5 6 . 5 6 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 6 5 . 6 8 . 6 9 . 6 9 . 74. 74. 7 9 . 8 2 . 9 0 . 9 7 . 103. 109 evenio

epistula letter Brief epistulis C a e s a r i s A u g u s t i , quibus nostra merita comprobantur

CA 2, 61

t o c o m e t o a n e n d , t u r n o u t ; in contrarium evenire = to turn into the opposite a u s g e h e n , a b l a u f e n ; in c o n t r a r i u m e v e n i r e = ins G e g e n t e i l u m s c h l a g e n in c o n t r a r i u m q u a e p r a e paraverat evenerunt

epulatio

examino

Mahl, Mahlzeit CA 2, 107

t o e x a m i n e , scrutinize untersuchen, prüfen

CA 2, 81

secundum genera examinare testimonia nihil h o r u m e x a m i n a n t e m

ergo

exerceo

equidem

CA 2, 5 2 . 6 5 . 7 4 . 9 7 . 9 8 . 109.

Ill

erubesco t o s t a n d in a w e of, h a v e r e s p e c t Scheu empfinden, Ehrfurcht e r u b e s c e n s [reveritus G e l e nius] G r a e c o r u m d e o s

CA 2, 5 3

e x —> e

meal, repast

n e q u e i n t u s ulla e p u l a t i o ministratur

CA 2, 103. 105. 107

haben CA 2 , 9 6

et CA 2, 5 1 . 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 5 5 . 5 6 . 5 7 . 57. 58. 58. 58. 58. 58. 58. 59. 59. 59. 60. 6 1 . 6 1 . 62. 62. 62. 62. 65.

CA 2, 6 2 2, 109

to exercise; inimicitias e x e r c e r e = to b e a t e n m i t y (with s o m e o n e ) , b e t h e e n e m y (of s o m e o n e ) b e t ä t i g e n ; inimicitias e x e r c e r e = (mit j e m a n d e m ) verfeindet sein, (jemandes) F e i n d sein a n t i q u a s inimicitias a d v e r sum nos exercentibus exercitus army Heer

CA 2, 70

A cum adversum exercitum quidem Oniae pugnare non praesumeret t r a d e r e . . e x e r c i t u m et principatum

473

CONCORDANCE

CA 2, 5 3

exterior outer

2, 5 9

äußerer in e x t e r i o r e m (sc. p o r t i cum) . . ingredi

CA 2, 103

exhibeo exto

to g r a n t erweisen solis i m p e r a t o r i b u s h u n c honorem . . exhibemus

CA 2, 77

eximius extraordinary, unusual, especially great außerordentlich, außergewöhnlich, besonders groß G r a e c o r u m a m a t o r eximius existo

CA 2, 101

[exsisto]

to b e sein masculi J u d a e o r u m m u n di e x i s t e n t e s [exsistentes Naber] expolio

CA 2, 104

t o s h o w oneself (to be), p r o v e oneself (to be) sich z e i g e n , sich e r w e i s e n eo q u o d circa o m n e s crudelis . . extaret (sc. C l e o ­ patra)

CA 2, 6 0

extrinsecus o u t s i d e (?) a u ß e r h a l b (?) neque enim extrinsecus [i.e. e^coGev = sine (Boy­ sen)] a l i q u a r a t i o c i n a t i o n e m e n t i t u s est [neque est c o r r u p t a ? ( R e i n a c h ) ] exulto

CA 2, 8 5

[exsulto]

t o t a k e p l e a s u r e (in s o m e t h i n g )

[exspolio]

seine F r e u d e (an etwas) h a b e n

to p l u n d e r plündern d u m Antiochus Epiphanes exspoliasset [ N a b e r : expoliasset c o d d . ] t e m p l u m A n t i o c h u m . . expoliasse [ N i e s e ( e d . m i n . ) : et spoliasse c o d d . : exspoliasse Reinach] templum auro

CA 2, 8 0

p a t r u m et u x o r u m . . figuras d e p i n g e n t e s e x u l t a n t [exsultant N a b e r ]

CA 2, 7 4

F

2, 8 4 fabricor

to m a k e , fabricate herstellen, anfertigen

argentoque plenum

p o r r o . . totius a n i m a t i . . inanimatas . . interdixit i m a g i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

[ e x s i s t o ] —> e x i s t o [ e x s p o l i o ] —» e x p o l i o

CA 2, 75

[ e x s u l t o ] —» e x u l t o fabula extendo

(invented) story

to stretch o u t (one's h a n d ) ausstrecken p r o c i d e n t e m a d eius g e n u a extensa dextra poposcisse l i b e r t a t e m

(erfundene) CA 2, 9 2

Geschichte

fabulam derogatione nostra p l e n a m huiusmodi ergo fabula . .

CA 2, 8 9 2, 9 7

474 omni sima adiciens seam putat

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

tragoedia plenisest fabulae s u a e M n a [testem e x c i d i s s e Boysen]

2, 112

facilis easy leicht superfluitas, q u a m . . c o g noscere valde facillimum est facio,

CA 2, 9 8

fio

t o d o (something), m a k e — C A 2, 113 = t o m a k e , c o n s t r u c t — C A 2, 7 7 . 105 = to p e r f o r m — C A 2, 58 = to m a k e (someone i n t o something), cause (some­ one) to b e c o m e (something)—dign u m facere a l i q u e m a l i q u a re (CA 2, 80) = t o d e e m s o m e o n e w o r t h y of a thing, honour someone by some­ t h i n g — i u s i u r a n d u m f a c e r e (CA 2 , 95) = to m a k e a v o w , swear a n o a t h — fio: CA 2, 5 4 . 108 = to b e m a d e ; CA 2, 62 = to be d r a w n up, be given— CA 2, 91 = t o b e c o m e ( s o m e t h i n g ) — CA 2, 71 = t o h a p p e n , b e c o m e (etwas) t u n , m a c h e n — C A 2, 113 = herstellen, anfertigen—CA 2, 77. 105 = v e r a n s t a l t e n — C A 2, 5 8 = m a c h e n z u , w e r d e n lassen z u — d i g n u m facere ali­ q u e m a l i q u a re (CA 2, 80) = j e m a n d e n e i n e r S a c h e für w ü r d i g h a l t e n , j e ­ m a n d e n durch etwas ehren—iusiu­ r a n d u m f a c e r e (CA 2 , 95) = e i n e n S c h w u r t u n , e i n e n E i d leisten—fio: CA 2, 5 4 . 108 = g e m a c h t w e r d e n ; CA 2, 62 = ausgefertigt w e r d e n , gegeben w e r d e n — C A 2, 91 = (zu etwas) w e r ­ d e n — C A 2, 71 = g e s c h e h e n , e i n t r e t e n e l e p h a n t i . . i m p e t u facto . . multos. . interemerunt Antoniumque corrumpens . . patriae inimicum fecit examinare testimonia sub A l e x a n d r o facta e diverso n a m q u e factum est q u o d v o b i s i m p r o perare praesumunt alii v e r o e t s e r v o s d i l i g e n t e s h o c faciunt

CA 2, 5 4 2, 5 8

2, 6 2 2, 71

2, 74

facimus . . c o n t i n u a sacrificia c o l e r e a c d i g n u m facere t a n t a religione n e q u e i u s t a m fecit t e m p l i depraedationem propheta vero aliorum factus est A p i o n h o c illos f a c e r e s i n g u l i s annis i u s i u r a n d u m facere h o c faciens facientes t r a d i t a s hostias fit t a r n e n o b s e r v a t i o p a r t i c u l a r i t e r p e r dies certos Z a b i d o n v e r o fecisse q u o d dam machinamentum

2, 77 2, 8 0 2, 8 3 2, 91 2, 9 4 2, 9 5 2, 101 2, 105 2, 108 2, 113

fallax lying lügnerisch ad componendum fallacia

verba

CA 2, 8 8

fames famine Hungersnot famis t e m p o r e

CA 2, 6 0

[feles] c u m n o n sit deterior asinus f u r o n i b u s [furonibus vid. c o r r u p t u m . A n felibus? canibus? ( R e i n a c h ) ] et hircis et aliis, q u a e s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii

[CA 2, 81]

felix blissful glückselig eos qui . . a crocodillis r a p i u n t u r , felices et d e o dignos arbitrantur

CA 2, 8 6

fides CA 2, 6 4 = m a k e of confidence—faith­ fulness, faithful a i d CA 2, 6 4 = V e r t r a u e n s b e w e i s — T r e u e , treuer Beistand

475

A CONCORDANCE

fidem, q u a m h a b u i t circa reges, n e q u a q u a m in necessitate deseruit fidei, q u a m circa e u m (sc. Caesarem) contra Aegyptios gessimus m a x i m a m . . eis (sc. J u daeis) fidem . . a regibus datam

CA 2, 5 2

2, 61

l e g i b u s . . i n q u i b u s sine fine c o n s i s t i m u s fio

CA 2, 8 2

—> f a c i o

flumen 2, 6 4

river Fluß fluminis

custodiam

CA 2, 6 4

figura figure; figuram alicuius d e p i n g e r e = t o p a i n t a p o r t r a i t of s o m e o n e Gestalt; figuram alicuius d e p i n g e r e = ein Bild v o n j e m a n d e m m a l e n p a t r u m et u x o r u m filior u m q u e figuras d e p i n gentes

CA 2, 7 4

films

treaty Vertrag p r o e l i o m a g n o et sine foedere Antiochum transgressum foedera J u d a e o r u m

CA 2, 6 5 2, 8 4

fomes

son; filii = c h i l d r e n

material

S o h n ; filii = K i n d e r

Stoff, M a t e r i a l

filios regis CA 2, 51 omnes vero Judaeos . . CA 2, 51 c u m filiis et u x o r i b u s eius filio et successori 2, 5 8 m a r i t u m et p a r e n t e m c o m 2, 5 9 munium filiorum p a t r u m et u x o r u m filio2, 7 4 rumque c u m nullas alias hostias ex 2, 77 communi neque pro filiis [neque pro filiis c o r ­ r u p t a . P r o rcaai legerit 7caiai? (Reinach)] p e r a gamus fin g o

q u i ei h u i u s m o d i f o m i t e m praebuerunt

sich a u s d e n k e n

CA 2, 79

fovea pit Grube in q u a n d a m f o v e a m reliqua hominis pereuntis abicere

CA 2, 9 5

frater brother Bruder p e r e m i t a u t e m et f r a t r e m insidiis

to devise

hominis . . Graeci compreh e n s i o n e m finxit Z a b i d o n v e r o fecisse q u o d dam machinament u m l i g n e u m . . et in e o tres o r d i n e s infixisse [finxisse N a b e r ] l u c e r narum

foedus

CA 2, 5 8

frumentum CA 2, 110

finis e n d ; sine fine = for all t i m e E n d e ; sine fine = für i m m e r

[2, 113]

corn Getreide f r u m e n t a c u n c t i s in A l e x andria commorantibus metiri sterilitatis a c n e c e s s i t a t i s frumentorum

CA 2, 6 3

2, 6 3

furo n a m e of a n a n i m a l (cf. T h e s a u r u s L i n g u a e L a t i n a e V I , 1629)

476

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

N a m e e i n e s T i e r e s (vgl. T h e s a u r u s L i n g u a e L a t i n a e V I , 1629) c u m n o n sit d e t e n u s asinus f u r o n i b u s [furonibus vid. c o r r u p t u m . A n felibus? canibus? ( R e i n a c h ) ] e t hircis et aliis, q u a e s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii

CA 2, 81

future; in f u t u r o = in t h e following zukünftig; in f u t u r o = i m f o l g e n d e n CA 2, 9 0

G gemitus sigh Seufzen c u m g e m i t u et l a c r i m i s

CA 2, 9 2

gens people Volk sacrilegium . . q u o circa g e n t e m n o s t r a m est usus

2, 6 6

2, 6 9

gero

fu t u r n s

q u a e in f u t u r o [futuris e d . p r . ] s u n t [ N i e s e : essent codd.] dicenda

c u m genus utique nostror u m [nostrum R e i n a c h ] u n u m a t q u e i d e m esse videatur nostrum vero genus permansit p u r u m

CA 2, 9 0

to d o , m a k e , p r a c t i s e , p e r f o r m (some­ thing); gesta (CA 2, 107) = acts, facts— CA 2, 61 = to s h o w , r e n d e r (etwas) t u n , m a c h e n , b e t r e i b e n , v e r a n ­ stalten; g e s t a (CA 2, 107) = T a t e n , T a t s a c h e n — C A 2, 61 = zeigen, er­ weisen bellum adversus Physcon e m gestum alios a u t e m d e m e n s [deiciens R ] et a d m a l a ger­ e n d a c o m p e l l e n s [alios compellens secl. Boysen] fidei, q u a m c i r c a e u m (sc. Gaesarem) contra Ae­ gyptios gessimus nullam seditionem adversus n o s g e s s e r u n t h a e c . . h a b e n t totius p o puli testimonium m a n i festationemque [mani­ festum rationemque ed. pr.] gestorum

CA 2, 5 6 2, 5 8

2, 61

2, 6 9 2, 107

glorior genu

t o b o a s t of, b e p r o u d of

knee

sich r ü h m e n , stolz sein

Knie p r o c i d e n t e m a d eius g e n u a

CA 2, 9 2

genus kind, people, race; generis necessarius = relative—CA 2, 62 = kind, c l a s s — g e n u s r e g a l e = royal d i g n i t y Geschlecht, Art, Rasse; generis necessarius = V e r w a n d t e r — C A 2, 62 = G a t t u n g , A r t — g e n u s regale = K ö n i g s ­ würde vel c i r c a g e n e r i s n e c e s s a CA 2, 5 7 r i o s v e l circa m a r i t o s suos alios . . g e n e r e regali s p o 2, 5 8 lians secundum genera exami2, 6 2 nare testimonia

putasne gloriandum nobis n o n esse . . ?

CA 2, 6 0

grammaticus learned m a n Gelehrter sed t u r p e est; h i s t o r i a e e n i m [enim o m . Sobius] v e r a m n o t i t i a m se [si Sobius] p r o f e r r e g r a m ­ maticus non promisit [compromisit c o n i . Niese: non possit Sobius]?

CA 2, 109

gratia a d alicuius g r a t i a m = t o please s o m e ­ o n e , for s o m e o n e ' s sake, for s o m e o n e ' s

477

A CONCORDANCE

benefit—gratiam h a b e r e = to b e g r a t e ­ ful, t h a n k a d alicuius g r a t i a m = j e m a n d e m z u Gefallen, z u g u n s t e n v o n j e m a n d e m , j e m a n d e m zuliebe—gratiam habere = D a n k wissen, d a n k e n n o n e n i m h o n o r i b u s [Sob i u s : honoris codd.: honores Boysen] g r a t i a m h a b e n t , q u i ex necessi­ tate . . c o n f e r u n t u r q u i h a e c a d illius g r a t i a m conscripserunt

CA 2, 7 3

2, 9 7

gurdus stupid, a w k w a r d dumm,

tölpelhaft

aut omnium [rudissimus Apion ad dum verba

gurdissimus S o b i u s ] fuit componenfallacia

CA 2, 8 8

gusto to taste, e a t kosten, essen gustare ex eius (sc. hominis) visceribus

CA 2, 9 5

tatem c o d d . ] h a b e n t e s nequaquam populo Macedonicam habente constantiam n o n e n i m h o n o r i b u s [Sob i u s : honoris c o d d . : ho­ nores B o y s e n ] g r a t i a m h a b e n t , q u i e x necessi­ tate . . conferuntur h a e c igitur A p i o n d e b u i t r e s p i c e r e , nisi c o r asini ipse p o t i u s h a b u i s s e t u t inimicitias c o n t r a G r a e cos h a b e r e n t quattuor . . h a b u i t . . porticus (sc. t e m p l u m ) q u a t t u o r . . p o r t i c u s , et h a r u m singulae p r o p riam . . h a b u e r e c u s t o diam haec . . habent totius populi testimonium l i c e t . . h a r u m t r i b u u m singulae h a b e a n t h o m i n u m plus q u a m q u i n q u e milia d u m bellum J u d a e i contra Idumaeos haberent

2, 70

2, 73

2, 8 5

2, 9 5 2, 103 2, 103

2, 107 2, 108

2, 112

habito t o dwell, r e s i d e , live

a d g u s t a n d u m viscera ilia

2, 100

w o h n e n , sich a u t h a l t e n , l e b e n cur ibidem habitaret

H habeo to hold, have, possess, p r e s e n t — g r a t i a m h a b e r e (CA 2, 73) = t o b e grateful, t h a n k ; b e l l u m h a b e r e (CA 2, 112; cf. inimicitias h a b e r e CA 2, 95) = t o b e in a state of w a r , b e at w a r (with s o m e o n e ) h a l t e n , h a b e n , besitzen, a u f w e i s e n — g r a t i a m h a b e r e (CA 2, 73) = D a n k wissen, d a n k e n ; b e l l u m h a b e r e (CA 2, 112; vgl. inimicitias h a b e r e CA 2, 95) = sich im Kriegszustand befinden, (mit j e m a n d e m ) i m K r i e g liegen fidem, q u a m h a b u i t circa reges, n e q u a q u a m in necessitate d e s e r u i t habere concordiam d o n e c e n i m G r a e c i fuerunt et M a c e d o n e s h a n c civit a t e m [ G e l e n i u s : civili-

CA 2, 5 2

CA 2, 9 2

hic (pronoun) (pronomen) CA 2, 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 5 5 . 5 5 . 6 0 . 6 2 . 6 3 . 6 4 . 6 5 . 6 7 . 6 8 . 6 9 . 6 9 . 70. 7 1 . 7 3 . 74. 74. [75.] 7 7 . 7 8 . 7 8 . 8 0 . 8 0 . 8 1 . 83. 84. 85. 88. 89. 9 1 . 94. 94. 97. 9 9 . 100. 1 0 1 . 102. 103. 107. 108. 108. 109. 110. 111 hinc CA 2, 6 0 hircus he-goat, buck

2, 6 8 2, 6 9

Ziegenbock, Bock f u r o n i b u s [furonibus v i d . c o r r u p t u m . A n felibus? canibus? ( R e i n a c h ) ] e t

CA 2, 81

478

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

hircis et aliis, q u a e s u n t a p u d eos (sc. Aegyptios) dii

q u e milia hominis . . Graeci comprehensionem cuius h o m i n i s n o m e n

2, 110 2, 112

historia honor

history

h o n o u r , t r i b u t e , distinction

Geschichte historiae . . veram tiam . . proferre

noti-

CA 2, 109

homo h u m a n being Mensch p r o h i b e n t e m . . u t illis noceret hominibus p r o p t e r e a n o n vos o m n e s d i e i m u s Aegyptios, et neque communiter homines porro . . causam neque deo neque homini­ bus utilem . . fabricari [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)] hunc honorem . . quem h o m i n u m nulli p e r s o l vimus templo a p u d cunetos homines nominato l e c t u m et h o m i n e m in e o iacentem e t [quod i n s . G e l e n i u s ] o b s t i p u i s s e t [obstupuisset R C ] his h o m o [et obstipuisse his hominem c o n i . R e i n a c h : homo = 6 a v ö p coTtoq ( T h a c k e r a y ) ] tunc hominem . . suam narrasse necessitatem d i r e p t u m se subito a b alienigenis h o m i n i b u s occidere . . e u m h o m i n e m in q u a n d a m f o v e a m reliqua hominis pereuntis abicere q u e m e n i m h o r u m [cuius enim regionis homines G e ­ lenius: enim — 8f| a u t o i v ( R e i n a c h ) ] n o n contigit aliquando circa nos p e r e g r i n a r i . .? inventum hominem h o m i n u m plus q u a m q u i n -

CA 2, 5 4 2, 6 6

2, 75

2, 77

Ehre, Ehrung, Auszeichnung suseipiunt h o n o r e s sicut d a r e offerentes p i u m a t q u e l e g i t i m u m est n o n e n i m h o n o r i b u s [Sob i u s : honoris c o d d . : ho­ nores B o y s e n ] g r a t i a m h a b e n t , q u i e x necessi­ tate . . conferuntur etiam principibus ac dominis hunc h o n o r e m praebere allis . . h o n o r i b u s p o s t d e u m c o l e n d o s . . viros bonos solis i m p e r a t o r i b u s h u n c honorem praeeipuum pariter exhibemus nos i t a q u e asinis n e q u e h o n o r e m neque potestatem aliquam damus

CA 2, 73

2, 73

2, 74

2, 76

2, 77

2, 8 6

2, 79 honoro 2, 91 2, 91

2, 9 2 2, 9 3 2, 9 5 2, 9 5

to h o n o u r ehren p o r r o n o s t e r legislator [hoc improbavit vel simile excidit ( R e i n a c h ) ] , n o n quasi p r o p h e t a n s R o m a ­ norum potentiam non h o n o r a n d a m . . totius animati. . inanimatas . . interdixit imagines fabricari [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

hora [2, 99]

hour Stunde secundum quasdam horas sacerdotes ingredi hostia

2, 100 2, 108

victim, sacrifice Opfer

CA 2, 105

A c u m nullas alias hostias . . peragamus ut a d h a s hostias o m n e s J u d a e i colligerentur facientes t r a d i t a s hostias

CONCORDANCE

CA 2, 77 2, 100 2, 105

479

ülic CA 2, 8 2 . 8 3 . 9 3 imago picture, statue Abbild, Statue

hostis enemy Feind egestate p e c u n i a r u m ad h o c accessit, c u m n o n esset hostis

CA 2, 8 3

huiusmodi CA 2, 7 9 . 8 2 . 97

I iaceo

CA 2, 7 3 2, 7 4 2, 74

2, 75

immolatio

to lie

i m m o l a t i o n , sacrifice

liegen l e c t u m et h o m i n e m in e o iacentem

quia imperatorum non statuamus imagines G r a e c i s . . b o n u m esse cred i t u r i m a g i n e s instituere q u i d a m v e r o e t i a m nihil sibi competentium sumunt imagines p o r r o noster legislator . . totius a n i m a t i . . i n a n i m a t a s . . interdixit i m a g ­ i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

Opferung CA 2, 91

iam

i u s i u r a n d u m facere in i m molatione Graeci

CA 2, 9 5

[ i m m u n d u s ] —> i n m u n d u s

CA 2, 5 5 . 9 6 impensa ibidem

e x p e n s e s , costs

CA 2, 9 2

Auslagen, Kosten ex impensa c o m m u n i o m n i u m J u d a e o r u m talia celebramus

idem CA 2, 6 5 . 6 6 . 7 9 . 8 2 igitur CA 2, 70. 8 1 . 8 5 . 102

imperator (Roman) emperor (römischer) K a i s e r

ignoro n o t to k n o w n i c h t wissen t a m q u a m illis h o c i g n o r antibus n o n i g n o r a r e m i n u s esse inmundum

CA 2, 77

CA 2, 73 2, 8 9

ille CA 2, 5 4 . 5 6 . 5 9 . 6 1 . 7 3 . 8 0 . 9 2 . 9 4 . 9 7 . [99.] 100. 109. 112. 112

R o m a n o s o m n e s et b e n e factores suos i m p e r a t o r e s maximis Romanis imperatoribus quid enim sapiant omnes imperatores de Judaeis neque regum quisquam . . neque . . quilibet im­ peratorum quia imperatorum non statuamus imagines et i m p e r a t o r e s et p o p u l u m R o m a n o r u m [Romanum Reinach]

CA 2, 57 2, 6 2 2, 6 3 2, 72

2, 7 3 2, 76

480

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

solis i m p e r a t o r i b u s h u n c honorem . . exhibemus

2, 77

sunt a p u d nos asini. . one r a sibimet imposita sustinentes

CA 2, 87

[impero] qui hoc Privilegium minis impetrasse sen e x e d . V e n e t . ad omnes imperasse noscuntur

a do[Boy­ 1510: codd.]

[CA 2, 71]

a do[Boy­ 1510: codd.]

CA 2, 71

impetro to acquire erlangen qui hoc Privilegium minis impetrasse sen e x e d . V e n e t . ad omnes imperasse noscuntur

[improbo] p o r r o n o s t e r legislator [hoc improbavit vel simile excidit (Reinach)] . . totius a n i m a t i . . inanimatas . . interdixit i m a g i n e s fab­ r i c a r i [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

[CA 2, 75]

impropero

(schmähend) vorwerfen C l e o p a t r a e . . m e m i n i t , veluti n o b i s i m p r o p e r a n s , q u o n i a m c i r c a n o s fuit ingrata e diverso n a m q u e factum est q u o d n o b i s i m p r o perare praesumunt

impetus attack Angriff e l e p h a n t i . . i m p e t u facto . . multos . . interemerunt

t o r e p r o a c h (abusively)

impudentia shamelessness, i m p u d e n c e Schamlosigkeit, Unverschämtheit

i m p i e t y , sacrilege Gottlosigkeit, Frevel CA 2, 5 5

i m p u d e n t i a m canis h u i u s m o d i ergo fabula . . i m p u d e n t i a crudeli redundat

CA 2, 8 5 2, 97

2, 111 in

impius i m p i o u s , sacrilegious gottlos, frevlerisch n o n se p u t a n t i m p i e a g e r e fuit e r g o v o l u n t a t e i n i q u u s [iniquis e d . p r . ] i m p i u s [impius seel. B o y s e n ]

2, 71

CA 2, 5 4

impietas

n e t a n tarn i m p i e t a t e m p e r a geret h o c e r g o p e s s i m a est i m pietas

CA 2, 5 6

CA 2, 79 2, 9 8

CA 2, 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 3 . 5 5 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 5 9 . 6 3 . 63. 67. 67. 67. 68. 80. 82. 90. 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 6 . 1 0 1 . 103. 103. 104. 104. 104. 104. 106. 106. 106. 108. 108. 112. 112. 113 inanimatus i n a n i m a t e , lifeless u n b e l e b t , leblos

impleo to attain erreichen h a e c i m p l e r e n o n valuit impono to b u r d e n with aufbürden

CA 2, 8 8

p o r r o . . totius animati m u l t o m a g i s dei, in­ a n i m a t a s , ut[coni. Niese: (in)animatu c o d d . : inaanimati ed. pr.] p r o b a t u r inferius, interdixit i m a g ­ i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

A includo

pecuniis i n d i g e n t e m A n t i o chum

to confine, lock u p einschließen, e i n s p e r r e n d i r e p t u m se . . a t q u e d e d u c t u m a d t e m p l u m et i n c l u s u m illic

481

CONCORDANCE

2, 8 4

indignus CA 2, 9 3

unworthy unwürdig his r e b u s i n d i g n o s esse

CA 2, 6 4

incongruus induo

nonsensical, a b s u r d

to clothe

ungereimt, absurd de nostro templo blasphemias c o m p o n e n t e s incongruas

CA 2, 79

bekleiden s a c e r d o t e s stolis i n d u t i sacerdotalibus

incredibilis

inebrio

incredible

to make drunk

unglaublich

betrunken

de incredibili suo m e n d a c i o

CA 2, 8 2

incredulus incredible unglaublich v e r b a i n c r e d u l a protulisse

CA 2, 109

increpo to r e p r o a c h ; CA 2, 8 2 = to scold, r e ­ b u k e s o m e o n e (as a liar) v o r w e r f e n ; CA 2 , 8 2 = ( j e m a n d e n e i n e n L ü g n e r ) schelten si a l i q u i d tale a p u d n o s fuisset, n e q u a q u a m d e buerat increpare q u o m o d o n o n intellexit operibus increpatus [h.e. xoiiq epyoi«; efyfa^Xzypivoq (Niese)] de incredibili suo mendacio?

CA 2, 81

2, 8 2

indicium proof, e v i d e n c e Beweis h o c indicium est sterilitatis

CA 2, 6 3

machen

cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, omnes vero Judaeos . . capiens . . e l e p h a n t i s subiecisset, u t a b eis c o n c u l c a t i defic e r e n t , et a d h o c e t i a m bestias ipsas i n e b r i a s s e t [ed. V e n . 1510: debriasset codd.]

CA 2, 5 3

ineffabilis inexpressible, u n u t t e r a b l e unaussprechlich purissimam pietatem, de q u a nihil n o b i s est a p u d a l i o s effabile [ineffabile Reinach] l e g e m ineffabilem J u d a e o rum m y s t e r i o r u m a l i q u o r u m ineffabilium p a b u l u m ineffabile p e r e a . . m a l a et ineffabilia . . n o b i s d e t r a h e r e temptaverunt

CA [2, 82]

2, 9 4 2, 107 2, 110 2, 111

inferior lower; inferius = b e l o w (in a book) u n t e r e r ; inferius = w e i t e r u n t e n (in e i n e r Schrift)

indigeo to n e e d , r e q u i r e bedürfen, benötigen t a m q u a m Ulis . . defensione Apionis indigentibus

CA 2, 104

CA 2, 73

p o r r o . . totius a n i m a t i . . inanimatas, ut probatur inferius, interdixit i m a g -

CA 2, 75

482

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

ingressus entering, entry Eintreten, Hereinkommen

infidelis

ilium v e r o m o x a d o r a s s e regis i n g r e s s u m

faithless treulos p a t r i a e i n i m i c u m . . et infidelem circa suos amicos eo q u o d circa o m n e s crudelis et infidelis e x t a r e t (sc. C l e o p a t r a )

CA 2, 5 8 2, 6 0

inimicitia inimicitiae = e n m i t y ; inimicitias exer­ c e r e (habere) = to b e at e n m i t y (with s o m e o n e ) , b e t h e e n e m y (of s o m e ­ one) inimicitiae = Feindschaft; inimicitias e x e r c e r e (habere) = (mit j e m a n d e m ) verfeindet sein, ( j e m a n d e s ) F e i n d sein

infidelitas faithlessness Treulosigkeit infidelitatem ac sacrileg i u m eius t e g e r e

CA 2, 92

CA 2, 9 0

infigo

antiquas inimicitias adversum nos exercentibus u t inimicitias c o n t r a G r a e cos h a b e r e n t

CA 2, 70

2, 9 5

t o fasten, a t t a c h inimicus

befestigen, a n b r i n g e n Z a b i d o n v e r o fecisse q u o d dam machinamentum l i g n e u m . . et in e o tres o r d i n e s infixisse [finxisse Naber] lucernarum

CA 2, 113

enemy Feind p a t r i a e i n i m i c u m . . et infid e l e m circa suos a m i c o s

CA 2, 5 8

iniquus ingratus

evil

ungrateful

böse

undankbar A p i o n . . is . . C l e o p a t r a e . . meminit, veluti nobis improperans, quoniam c i r c a n o s fuit i n g r a t a

CA 2, 5 6

CA 2, 9 8

initium b e g i n n i n g ; initia s u m e r e = to p r o c e e d from

ingredior t o g o in(to), e n t e r

A n f a n g ; initia s u m e r e = a u s g e h e n v o n

hineingehen, eintreten i n e x t e r i o r e m (sc. p o r t i c u m ) . . ingredi licebat in s e c u n d a v e r o p o r t i c u [secundam vero porticum Sobius] cuncti J u d a e i ingrediebantur secundum quasdam horas sacerdotes ingredi servos i n g r e d i e n t e s u b i n e c nobilissimos J u d a e o r u m licet i n t r a r e

fuit e r g o v o l u n t a t e i n i q u u s [iniquis e d . p r . ] i m p i u s [impius secl. Boysen]

CA 2, 103 2, 104

certe ex r e b u s [ex rebus corr u p t a ( R e i n a c h ) ] initia sumens haec implere n o n valuit

CA 2, 8 8

iniustitia 2, 105 2, 110

injustice Ungerechtigkeit iniustitiae et m a l o r u m o p e rum

CA 2, 57

A

CONCORDANCE

iniustus

h a s litteras A p i o n e m o p o r tebat inspicere

unlawful, unjust unrechtmäßig

CA 2, 6 2

instituo

ut ipse r e g n u m iniuste sibimet applicaret inmundus

483

CA 2, 51

[immundus]

unclean unrein m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m [immundum Naber] per templa transire q u a m sacerdotibus scelesta v e r b a confingere

CA 2, 8 9

inopinabilis

CA 2, 7 4 = t o d e a l w i t h t h e p r o d u c ­ t i o n (of s o m e t h i n g ) , m a k e ( s o m e ­ t h i n g ) — C A 2, 5 8 = t o m a k e ( s o m e o n e something) CA 2, 74 = sich m i t d e r H e r s t e l l u n g (von etwas) befassen, (etwas) m a c h e n — CA 2 , 5 8 = ( j e m a n d e n z u e t w a s ) machen Antoniumque corrumCA 2, 5 8 p e n s . . infidelem c i r c a suos a m i c o s instituit G r a e c i s . . b o n u m esse 2, 74 c r e d i t u r i m a g i n e s instituere

unexpected unerwartet

[insuper]

haec . . inopinabilia beneficia

CA 2, 9 4

inquam inquit = h e says

s u p e r n o s a u x i l i a t o r e s [sodos insuper nos G e l e n i u s ] suos et a m i c o s a d g r e s sus est

[CA 2, 8 3 ]

integritas

i n q u i t = e r sagt q u o m o d o ergo, inquit. . eosdem deos . . non colunt? ait, inquit, esse q u i d e m se Graecum

CA 2, 6 5

2, 9 3

insensatus unreasonable

integrity, ( u n i m p e a c h a b l e ) p u r i t y Unversehrtheit, (unantastbare) Rein­ heit c o n s t r u c t i o n e m templi n o s tri . . e t i n t r a n s g r e s s i b i l e m eius purificationis integritatem

CA 2, 102

intellego

unvernünftig

to perceive, notice insensatos e n i m n o n verbis sed o p e r i b u s d e c e t a r guere

CA 2, 102

merken, erkennen q u o m o d o n o n intellexit operibus increpatus de incredibili suo m e n d a c i o ?

insidiae insidious p l o t

CA 2, 8 2

inter

hinterlistiger A n s c h l a g

CA 2, 6 5 . 6 9 p e r e m i t a u t e m et f r a t r e m insidiis insidias J u d a e o r u m

CA 2, 5 8 interdico 2, 9 6 to forbid, p r o h i b i t untersagen, verbieten

inspicio to inspect, look at (carefully) in A u g e n s c h e i n einsehen

nehmen,

(prüfend)

porro noster legislator. . totius a n i m a t i . . i n a n i m a t a s . . interdixit i m a g -

CA 2, 75

484

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)] interimo t o kill töten e l e p h a n t i . . i m p e t u facto . . multos . . interemerunt

CA 2, 5 4

intransgressibilis intransgressible, u n i m p e a c h a b l e unüberschreitbar,

unantastbar

constructionem templi n o s t r i . . et i n t r a n s g r e s sibilem eius purificationis i n t e g r i t a t e m

CA 2, 102

CA 2, 8 0 2, 82 2, 8 3 2, 91 2, 9 8 2, 100

ipse CA 2, 5 1 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 5 9 . 6 0 . 70. 8 5 . 8 5 . 9 8 . 101 is

intro to enter eintreten ubi nec nobilissimos J u d a e o r u m licet i n t r a r e

A l e x a n d r i n o r u m fuisse cives illud c a p u t i n v e n t u m nihil h u i u s m o d i illic invenerunt nec aliquid d i g n u m derisione illic invenit A n t i o c h u m in t e m p l o invenisse l e c t u m et h o m i n e m invenit n o n sperans inventum hominem

CA 2, 110

CA 2, 5 2 . 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 5 5 . 5 6 . 5 6 . 5 7 . 5 8 . 5 9 . 5 9 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 6 4 . 6 4 . 6 4 . [66.] 6 8 . 6 9 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 7 7 . 79. 79. 79. 80. 8 1 . 86. 89. 90. 9 1 . 9 1 . 92. 92. 92. 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 9 5 9 6 . 9 6 . 1 0 1 . 102. 104. 106. 111. 111. 112. 112. 112. 112. 113 iste

introduco

CA 2, 8 6 . 9 0

t o give r e s i d e n c e (with t h e r i g h t of c i t i z e n s h i p in a city) (mit b ü r g e r l i c h e n R e c h t e n i n e i n e r Stadt) W o h n s i t z g e b e n nos autem Alexander quid e m introduxit, reges autem auxerunt

CA 2, 72

ita CA 2, 113 itaque CA 2, [66.] 7 3 . 74. 7 8 . 8 6 . 103. 113. iubeo

introeo

to bid

t o g o in(to)

gebieten

hineingehen m a n e etenim aperto templo o p o r t e b a t facientes t r a ditas hostias i n t r o i r e

CA 2, 105

CA 2, 9 2 [2, 98]

2

intus CA 2, 107

iudico t o b e of t h e o p i n i o n , believe

invenio

d e r M e i n u n g sein, g l a u b e n

t o find, d i s c o v e r finden,

i u b e n t e rege, u t confideret i m p i u s et n i h i l o m i n u s sine d e o , q u a n t a v i s sit [ C : quanta iussit c o d d . : quicquid iussit Gelenius] m e n d a c i i superfluitas

entdecken

seditionis a u c t o r e s q u i l i b e t i n v e n i e t A p i o n i s similes

CA 2, 6 9

u t s a l u t e m h i n c s p e r a r e se iudicaret n e q u a q u a m his r e b u s ind i g n o s esse i n d i c a n t e s (sc. J u d a e o s )

CA 2, 6 0 2, 6 4

A

CONCORDANCE

ius, iusiurandum ius civilitatis = right of c i t i z e n s h i p — p a t r i a i u r a = traditional laws, n a t i o n a l legal t r a d i t i o n — i u s i u r a n d u m = v o w , o a t h ; i u s i u r a n d u m facere = to m a k e a vow, swear an oath ius civilitatis = (Bürger-) R e c h t — p a t r i a i u r a = überliefertes R e c h t , n a t i o n a l e Rechtstradition —iusiurandum = S c h w u r , Eid; i u s i u r a n d u m facere = e i n e n S c h w u r t u n , e i n e n E i d leisten c u m . . n o n o p o r t u n e ius e i u s civilitatis [civitatis Reinach] optineant Aegyptiis n e q u e r e g u m q u i s q u a m v i d e t u r ius civilitatis fuisse largitus patria iura transcendere i u s i u r a n d u m facere

CA 2, 71

485

prodidisse et detulisse [beneficia visa attulisse Gelenius] laetitiam lamentabilis l a m e n t a b i l i t e r = in a p l a i n t i v e voice l a m e n t a b i l i t e r = m i t kläglicher S t i m m e tunc hominem . . lamentabiliter s u a m n a r r a s s e necessitatem

CA 2, 9 2

largior to p r e s e n t , b e s t o w , give

2, 72

2, 7 3 2, 9 5

schenken, verleihen, geben Aegyptiis n e q u e r e g u m q u i s q u a m v i d e t u r ius civilitatis fuisse largitus

CA 2, 72

laudo iustitia

to praise

justice

loben

Gerechtigkeit testis a u t e m d e u s iustitiae eius manifestus a p p a r u i t

CA 2, 5 2

iustus

Judaeos accusare praesumpsit, c u m eos laudare debuerit

CA 2, 5 6

lectus

CA 2 , 8 3 = j u s t , j u s t i f i e d , w e l l f o u n d e d — C A 2, 9 0 = right, fair, j u s t CA 2, 8 3 = g e r e c h t , g e r e c h t f e r t i g t , b e g r ü n d e t — C A 2, 9 0 = r e c h t , b e r e c h ­ tigt, w a s sich g e h ö r t n e q u e i u s t a m fecit t e m p l i depraedationem iusta et v e r a c i a . . c o n scribere

CA 2, 8 3 2, 9 0

bed Bett l e c t u m et h o m i n e m i n e o iacentem legislator lawgiver Gesetzgeber porro noster legislator. . totius a n i m a t i . . i n a n i m a t a s . . interdixit i m a g ­ i n e s f a b r i c a r i [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

L lacrima

CA 2, 91

CA 2, 75

tear legitimus

Träne c u m g e m i t u et lacrimis

CA 2, 9 2

laetitia j°y Freude p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia beneficia

CA 2, 9 4

lawful, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e laws rechtmäßig, mit den Gesetzen ver­ einbar suscipiunt h o n o r e s sicut d a r e offerentes p i u m a t q u e l e g i t i m u m est

CA 2, 7 3

486

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

lex

t h o u g h — CA 2, 87 = ? es ist erlaubt, es steht frei—CA 2, 108 = o b w o h l - G 4 2, 87 = ?

law Gesetz in legibus a p r i n c i p i o c o n stitutis . . p e r m a n s e r u n t legibus . . s e m p e r u t i m u r isdem l e g e m ineffabilem J u d a e o rum n o n e n i m circa solos G r a e cos discordia l e g u m [ p o s t legum, nostrarum desideratur (Reinach)] esse d i n o s c i t u r q u a t t u o r . . p o r t i c u s , et h a r u m singulae p r o p riam secundum legem habuere custodiam q u a e o m n i a et in lege conscripta sunt

CA 2, 6 7 2, 8 2 2, 9 4 2, 9 9

2, 103

2, 106

et licet [si G e l e n i u s : gr. verisim. Kai ei q u o d int e r p r e s in et Kai vertit (Reinach)] a d a r e a s a c c e d e n t e s (sc. asini) c o medant i n g r e d i licebat [licentiam L e t e d . p r . : licentia fuit Sobius] o m n i b u s e t i a m alienigenis nec vas aliquod portari licet in t e m p l u m licet e n i m sint tribus q u a t t u o r [viginti quattuor c o n i . Ottius] sacerdotum u b i n e c nobilissimos J u d a e o r u m licet i n t r a r e

2, 103

2, 106 2, 108

2, 110

ligneus

liber noble-minded, respectable

w o o d e n , of w o o d

von edler Gesinnung, anständig

hölzern, aus Holz

d u m sit v a l d e t u r p i s s i m u m liberis [i.e. éA,e\)0ep{oiç (Thackeray)] qualibet ratione mentiri

CA 2, 79

CA 2, 113

[litera]

litterae = letters, writings (in t h e n a t u r e of d o c u m e n t s ) litterae = Briefe, S c h r e i b e n (mit U r kundencharakter)

to l i b e r a t e befreien eum . .

m a c h i n a m e n t u m ligneum littera

libero

ut . . de malis liberaret

CA 2, 87

CA 2, 9 6

h a s litteras [litems N a b e r ] A p i o n e m o p o r t e b a t inspicere

CA 2, 6 2

longus

libertas freedom

long

Freiheit

lang

p r o c i d e n t e m a d eius g e n u a extensa dextra poposcisse l i b e r t a t e m

CA 2, 9 2

longo q u o d a m tempore

CA 2, 112

loquor to speak, talk

[licentia]

sprechen, reden

i n g r e d i licebat [licentiam L et e d . p r . : licentia fuit Sobius] o m n i b u s etiam alienigenis

[CA 2, 103]

de pietate loqui

CA 2, 8 9

lucerna lamp Lampe

licet it is p e r m i t t e d — C A

2,

108 =

al-

très o r d i n e s . . l u c e r n a r u m

CA 2, 113

A M machinamentum apparatus, wooden

frame

A p p a r a t u r , (hölzernes) Gestell Z a b i d o n v e r o fecisse q u o d dam machinamentum ligneum

487

CONCORDANCE

CA 2, 113

n o n e n i m circa solos G r a e cos discordia l e g u m esse dinoscitur, sed m a x i m e adversus Aegyptios assumere vero contra J u d a e o r u m o d i u m solacia [auxilia Gelenius] m a g n a cunctorum

2, 9 9

2, 101

malum magis m o r e : m u l t o m a g i s = all t h e m o r e , a b o v e all m e h r ; m u l t o m a g i s = u m so m e h r , vollends nihilo m i n u s [magis G e l e nius] porro . . multo magis . . fabricari [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)] multo magis magis studuerunt defendere sacrilegum regem q u a m iusta et v e r a c i a . . conscribere

CA [2, 64] 2, 75

2, 79 2, 9 0

magnanimitas magnanimity Großmut m a g n a n i m i t a t e m mediocritatemque R o m a n o r u m magnus,

CA 2, 7 3

maximus

CA 2, 101 = i m p o r t a n t , p o w e r f u l — CA 2, 6 5 = fierce, b i t t e r — m a x i m u s = very i m p o r t a n t , q u i t e e x t r a o r d i n a r y ; m a x i m e = m o s t of all, v e r y specially CA 2, 101 = b e d e u t e n d , m ä c h t i g — C A 2, 6 5 = heftig, e r b i t t e r t — m a x i m u s = sehr b e d e u t e n d , g a n z a u ß e r o r d e n t l i c h ; m a x i m e = a m meisten, g a n z b e s o n d e r s maximo Caesare utimur teste maximis Romanis imperatoribus m a x i m a m . . eis (sc. J u d a eis) fidem . . a r e g i b u s datam p r o e l i o m a g n o et sine foedere m a x i m u m . . solacium

CA 2, 61 2, 6 2 2, 6 4

2, 6 5 2, 9 2

evil; m a l a c i r c u m a s t a n t i a = critical s i t u a t i o n — C A 2, 111 = a t r o c i t y Übel; mala circumastantia = mißliche L a g e — CA 2, 111 = G r e u e l t a t malis e u m circumastantibus p e r e a . . m a l a et ineffabilia . . n o b i s d e t r a h e r e temptaverunt malus,

CA 2, 9 6 2, 111

pessimus

(morally) b a d , evil, k n a v i s h , b a s e (moralisch) schlecht, b ö s e , s c h u r k i s c h , niederträchtig iniustitiae et m a l o r u m o p e rum alios a u t e m d e m e n s [deiciens R ] et a d m a l a g e r e n d a c o m p e l l e n s [alios - com­ pellens secl. B o y s e n ] c u n c t i s scilicet u t e n t i b u s malis m o r i b u s A e g y p t i o rum h o c e r g o p e s s i m a est i m pietas

CA 2, 5 7 2, 5 8

2, 70

2, 111

mane early in t h e m o r n i n g a m frühen

Morgen

m a n e . . et m e r i d i e r u r s u s

CA 2, 105

manifestatio visible p r o o f s i c h t b a r e r Beweis h a e c . . h a b e n t totius p o puli testimonium m a n i festationemque [mani­ festum rationemque ed. p r . ] gestorum

CA 2, 107

488

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

manifestas

halb; mediante mittags

clear deutlich testis a u t e m d e u s iustitiae eius m a n i f e s t u s a p p a r u i t h a e c . . h a b e n t totius p o p u l i testimonium manifestationemque [manifestum rationemque e d . p r . ] g e s t o rum

m e d i a n t e die CA 2, 5 2 [2, 107]

CA 2, 108

mediocritas moderate attitude

magnanimitatem mediocritatemque R o m a n o r u m

CA 2, 7 3

memini to m e n t i o n

hand

erwähnen

Hand CA 2, 6 0

A p i o n . . is a u t e m e t i a m ultimae Cleopatrae . . meminit

CA 2, 5 6

mendacium lie

maritimus

Lüge

from t h e sea aus d e m M e e r stammend, Meerm e n s a m maritimis terrenisq u e et volatilium d a p i b u s plenam

Mittag,

maßvolle Gesinnung

manus

si p o s s e t i p s a m a n u s u a J u d a e o s [Judaeos secl. Boysen: se R e i n a c h ] p e r i mere

die = a m

CA 2, 91

mari tus

q u o m o d o n o n intellexit o p e ribus increpatus [h.e. TOÎÇ e'pyoïç éÇeAjitayfjivoç (Niese)] d e incredibili suo mendacio? m e n d a c i i superfluitas mendacium spontaneum

CA 2, 8 2

2, 9 8 2, 111

husband Ehemann, Gatte maritos suos, qui etiam d i l e x e r u n t e a r n [qui-eam vel c o r r u p t u m , vel a b ignaro interprète scriptum qui verba graeca (e.g. K a i xo\)ç a ù r n v épôvxaç) n o n i n t e l l e x i t (Reinach)] m a r i t u m et p a r e n t e m c o m m u n i u m filiorum

mensa CA 2, 57

2, 5 9

s i . . famis t e m p o r e J u d a e i s t r i t i c u m n o n est m e n s a p r o p o s i t a m ei m e n s a m [mensulam G e l e n i u s ] . . dapibus plenam altare mensa turibulum candelabrum

CA 2, 6 0 2, 91

2, 106

menstruatus

masculus

menstruating

maie

die m o n a t l i c h e B l u t u n g h a b e n d , m e n struierend

männlich masculi J u d a e o r u m m u n d i existentes

t a b l e ; CA 2, 6 0 = food T i s c h ; CA 2, 6 0 = Speise

CA 2, 104

m a x i m u s —> m a g n u s medians half; m e d i a n t e die = at n o o n

mulieres t a n t u m m o d o m e n struatae transire p r o h i b e bantur

CA 2, 103

[mensula] propositam ei m e n s a m [men-

[CA 2, 91]

A

489

CONCORDANCE

sülam G e l e n i u s ] . . d a pibus p l e n a m

c o n s u l e n t e m a ministris a d se a c c e d e n t i b u s a u d i s s e legem

CA 2, 9 4

mentior ministro

to lie

CA 2, 79

CA 2, 107 = t o serve (a m e a l , a r e p a s t ) — C A 2, 8 7 = t o b e available (for l a b o u r s ) , r e n d e r (services), c a r r y o u t (services)

2, 79

CA 2 , 107 = (ein M a h l ) a u f t r a g e n , (eine M a h l z e i t ) s e r v i e r e n — C A 2, 8 7 = (für A r b e i t e n ) z u r V e r f ü g u n g s t e h e n , (Arbeiten) v e r r i c h t e n (besorgen)

lügen mentientes autem pariter et de nostro t e m p l o blasphemias componentes incongruas d u m sit valde t u r p i s s i m u m liberis q u a l i b e t r a t i o n e mentiri neque enim extrinsecus [i.e. e£co9ev = sine (Boysen)] a l i q u a r a t i o c i n a tione m e n t i t u s est [neque - est c o r r u p t a ? ( R e i nach)] detrahentes n o b i s . . mentiti s u n t

2, 8 5

2, 9 0

o p e r i b u s . . ministrantes (sc. asini) n e q u e i n t u s ulla e p u l a t i o m i n i s t r a t u r [administrator Naber]

CA 2, 87 2, 107

minus less; nihilo m i n u s = n e v e r t h e l e s s weniger; nihilo minus = nichtsdestoweniger

meridies midday Mittag m a n e . . et m e r i d i e r u r s u s

CA 2, 105

meritum service, m e r i t Dienst, V e r d i e n s t epistulis C a e s a r i s A u g u s t i , quibus nostra mérita comprobantur

nihilo m i n u s [magis G e l e nius] m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r templa transire q u a m sacerdotibus scelesta verba confingere

CA 2, 6 4 2, 8 9

miror CA 2, 61

t o w o n d e r at, b e a s t o n i s h e d sich w u n d e r n , e r s t a u n t sein q u i d m i r a r i s s u p e r his . . si in legibus . . p e r m a n serunt?

m e t —> s e

CA 2, 67

metior mirus

to allocate

amazing, astonishing

zuteilen f r u m e n t a cunctis in A l e x andria commorantibus metiri

CA 2, 6 3

verwunderlich, erstaunlich q u i d e r g o m i r u m est, s i . . hunc honorem praebere videantur?

CA 2, 7 4

mille CA 2, 100. 108

molestia d i s t u r b a n c e of p e a c e , a n n o y a n c e

minister servant Diener

S t ö r u n g des F r i e d e n s , Ä r g e r ipsi igitur m o l e s t i a e h u i u s fuere p r i n c i p i u m

CA 2, 70

490

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

mordeo

m u l t a s v a l d e p i a g a s accip i u n t (sc. asini)

to bite beißen q u i a b istis (sc. aspidibus) mordentur

mundus CA 2, 8 6

clean rein

mos c u s t o m , h a b i t , w a y of a c t i n g Sitte, G e w o h n h e i t , V e r h a l t e n s w e i s e c u n c t i s scilicet u t e n t i b u s malis moribus Aegyptiorum

2, 87

CA 2, 70

cuncti J u d a e i . . eorumq u e c o n i u g e s , c u m essent a b o m n i p o l l u t i o n e mundae masculi J u d a e o r u m m u n d i existentes

CA 2, 104

2, 104

mysterium mox

m y s t e r y cult

CA 2, 9 2

Geheimkult m y s t e r i o r u m a l i q u o r u m ineffabilium

mulier

CA 2, 107

woman Frau N mulieres t a n t u m m o d o m e n struatae transire prohibebantur

CA 2, 103 nam CA 2, 5 3 . 6 4 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 7 2 . 8 2

multitudo

namque

m u l t i t u d e , (large) n u m b e r

CA 2, 109

M e n g e , (große) Z a h l cum vero multitudo Aeg y p t i o r u m crevisset o m n e m multitudinem J u daeorum

CA 2, 6 9 CA 2, 113

multus m u c h , g r e a t ; m u l t o m a g i s = all t h e m o r e , a b o v e all; m u l t i = m a n y viel, g r o ß ; m u l t o m a g i s = u m so m e h r , v o l l e n d s ; m u l t i = viele i m p e t u facto . . m u l t o s e x ipsis i n t e r e m e r u n t bestias . . colitis m u l t a diligentia n u t r i e n t e s porro . . multo magis . . fabricari [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)] multo magis illud c a p u t . . ex a u r o c o m p o s i t u m , multis p e c u n i i s dignum multi et digni c o n s c r i p tores

CA 2, 5 4 2, 6 6

narro t o tell, r e p o r t erzählen, berichten tunc hominem . . lamentabiliter s u a m narrasse necessitatem

CA 2, 9 2

natura (human) nature W e s e n (des M e n s c h e n ) , (menschliche Natur bestias adversantes n a t u r a e n o s t r a e colitis

CA 2, 6 6

2, 75 navalis 2, 79 2, 8 0

n a v a l ; n a v a l e c e r t a m e n = n a v a l battle Schiffs-, See-; n a v a l e c e r t a m e n = See­ schlacht in n a v a l i c e r t a m i n e

2, 8 4

CA 2, 5 9

A

491

CONCORDANCE

ne

8 5 . 8 6 . 8 6 . 107. 107 (conjunction) nihil, n i h i l u m

(Konjunktion)

CA 2, 5 7 . 5 7 . 6 4 . 7 4 . 8 2 . 8 2 . 107. 109 CA 2, 5 5 nihilominus ne CA 2, 9 8

(enclitic interrogative) (enklitisches F r a g e w o r t )

n i h i l u m —> n i h i l

CA 2, 6 0

nisi CA 2, 8 5 . 109. 110

nec CA 2, [61.] [62.] 8 3 . 106. 110

nobilis

necessarius

noble, esteemed

n e c e s s a r y — g e n e r i s necessarius = rela­ tive notwendig—generis Verwandter

necessarius

vel c i r c a g e n e r i s n e c e s sarios vel circa m a r i t o s suos ad agriculturam rebus necessariis

=

servos ingredientes u b i n e c nobilissimos J u d a e o r u m licet i n t r a r e

CA 2, 110

CA 2, 57 noceo to injure, t o h a r m 2, 87

nécessitas emergency, predicament, exigency— CA 2, 73 = c o m p u l s i o n — C A 2, 6 3 dearth N o t , Notsituation, Z w a n g s l a g e — C i 2, 73 = Z w a n g — C A 2, 6 3 = M a n g e l fidem, q u a m h a b u i t circa reges, n e q u a q u a m in necessitate d e s e r u i t sterilitatis a c n e c e s s i t a t i s frumentorum h o n o r i b u s . . q u i ex n e c e s sitate et violentia c o n feruntur tunc hominem . . lamentabiliter s u a m n a r r a s s e necessitatem

vornehm, angesehen

s c h a d e n , zuleide t u n p r o h i b e n t e m . . u t illis noceret hominibus sororem Arsinoen occ i d i t . . nihil sibi n o centem

CA 2, 5 4 CA 2, 5 7

nolo not to w a n t

CA 2, 5 2

nicht wollen

2, 6 3

qui noluerint veritatem

2, 7 3

nomen

discutere

CA 2, 111

inventum h o m i n e m , quic u m q u e fuit, n o n e n i m suo n o m i n e conscripsit cuius h o m i n i s n o m e n

CA 2, 100

name Name 2, 9 2

necnon CA 2, 6 1 . 6 2 nequaquam CA 2, 5 2 . 6 4 . 70. 81 neque CA 2, 6 6 . 70. 72. 72. 7 5 . 7 5 . 7 7 . 8 3 .

2, 112

nomino t o n a m e — C A 2, 79 = t o p r a i s e n e n n e n — C A 2, 7 9 = r ü h m e n templo apud cunctos homines nominato

CA 2, 79

492

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

in a l i q u a civitate I d u m a e o r u m [ G e l e n i u s : Judaeorum c o d d . ] , q u i D o r i i nominantur

2, 112

cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, omnes vero J u d a e o s . . capiens nudos a t q u e vinctos e l e p h a n t i s subiecisset

O l 2, 5 3

non CA 2, 65. 79. 97.

5 3 . 5 6 . 6 0 . 6 0 . [61.] [62.] 6 3 . 66. 7 1 . 73. 73. 75. 75. 76. 79. 8 1 . 82. 8 3 . 87. 88. 89. 9 8 . 9 8 9 9 . 9 9 . 100. 1 0 1 . 102.

63. 77. 97. 109

nullus CA 2, 6 9 . 7 7 . 7 7 . 8 8 . 9 3 . 108 numerus n u m b e r ; a d n u m e r u m = duly n u m ­ bered

nos CA 2 , 5 6 . 5 6 . 6 0 . 6 1 . 6 8 . 6 8 . 6 9 . 7 0 . 71. 72. 73. 76. 79. 79. ,81. 82. 8 3 . 86. 87. 88. 90. 99. I l l nosco

Z a h l ; a d n u m e r u m = vollzählig a p r a e c e d e n t i b u s claves t e m p l i et a d n u m e r u m o m n i a vasa percipiunt

n o s c o r = it is k n o w n t h a t I

nunc

n o s c o r = m a n w e i ß v o n m i r d a ß , es ist b e k a n n t d a ß ich

CA 2, 72

u n d e recte h a n c diem J u d a e i . . celebrare noscuntur eo quod noscamur habere concordiam qui hoc Privilegium a d o minis impetrasse nos­ cuntur

CA 2, 5 5

nutrio t o feed, p r o v i d e w i t h food

2, 6 8 2, 71

noster

füttern, m i t N a h r u n g v e r s o r g e n bestias . . colitis m u l t a diugentia nutrientes l e g e m ineffabilem J u d a e o rum, pro qua nutriebatur

CA 2, 6 1 . 6 6 . 6 6 . 6 9 . 7 5 . 7 9 . 8 2 . 8 9 . 9 0 . 9 0 . [99.] 102. 110. 112 notitia

CA 2, 108

CA 2, 6 6 2, 9 4

O ob

knowledge, conception, idea

CA 2, 6 8

K e n n t n i s , V o r s t e l l u n g , Begriff historiae . . veram tiam . . proferre

noti-

CA 2, 109

service (of t h e priests in t h e T e m p l e at J e r u s a l e m )

novus n o v i s s i m e , a d n o v i s s i m u m — in t h e e n d , finally n o v i s s i m e , a d n o v i s s i m u m = zuletzt, schließlich novissime . . a d h o c usque p e r d u c t a est ad novissimum nudus naked nackt

observatio

CA 2, 6 0

D i e n s t (der Priester i m T e m p e l v o n Jerusalem) fit t a r n e n o b s e r v a t i o p a r ticulariter p e r dies certos obstipesco

CA 2, 108

[obstupesco]

to b e c o m e astonished 2, 8 2

in E r s t a u n e n geraten et [quod ins. G e l e n i u s ] o b stipuisset [obstupuisset R C ] his h o m o [et obstipuisse his hominem c o n i .

CA 2, 91

A CONCORDANCE R e i n a c h : homo = 6 ctv6pamoq ( T h a c k e r a y ) ] [ o b t i n e o ] —> o p t i n e o occido to kill töten q u a e e t i a m s o r o r e m Arsin o e n occidit occidere . . e u m h o m i n e m

CA 2, 5 7 2, 9 5

odium hatred Haß assumere vero contra J u d a e o r u m o d i u m solacia [auxilia Gelenius] m a g n a cunctorum

CA 2, 101

offero to offer, p r e s e n t darbieten, darbringen suscipiunt h o n o r e s sicut d a r e offerentes p i u m a t q u e l e g i t i m u m est talia n a m q u e e t i a m a d a l t a r e offerre p r o h i b i ­ t u m est

CA 2, 7 3

2, 109

olim formerly einst m a x i m a m . . eis (sc. J u daeis) fidem olim a r e gibus d a t a m

CA 2, 6 4

omnino absolutely schlechterdings cui nihil o m n i n o titiae . . defuit

inius-

CA 2, 5 7

Apion a u t e m o m n i u m calumniator cui nihil o m n i n o iniustitiae . . defuit vel c i r c a generis necessarios . . vel in c o m m u n i contra Romanos omnes eo q u o d circa o m n e s crudelis . . e x t a r e t A l e x a n d r o . . et o m n i b u s Ptolomaeis omnes imperatores p r o p t e r e a n o n vos o m n e s dicimus Aegyptios c u r o m n e s n o s c u l p a t . .? qui hoc Privilegium a dominis impetrasse [Boy­ sen e x e d . V e n e t . 1510: ad omnes imperasse c o d d . ] noscuntur ex impensa c o m m u n i omn i u m J u d a e o r u m talia celebramus omnes dicunt. . Antioc h u m . . expoliasse t e m ­ plum aut o m n i u m gurdissimus fuit A p i o n huiusmodi ergo fabula . . o m n i tragoedia pleniss i m a est ut a d has hostias o m n e s J u d a e i colligerentur omnes qui viderunt ingredi licebat omnibus e t i a m alienigenis c u m essent a b o m n i p o l lutione m u n d a e t a n t a v e r o est c i r c a o m n i a P r o v i d e n t i a pietatis q u a e o m n i a et in lege conscripta sunt o m n i a vasa si o m n e s a b s c e d e r e n t o m n e m multitudinem J u daeorum

493 2, 5 6 2. 5 7

2, 6 0 2, 6 2 2, 6 3 2, 6 6 2, 6 8 [2, 71]

2, 77

2, 8 4

2, 8 8 2, 9 7

2, 100 2, 102 2, 103 2, 104 2, 105 2, 106 2, 108 2, 112 2, 113

onus omnis

burden Last

all, every, e n t i r e aller, j e d e r , g a n z omnes vero J u d a e o s civitate positos

in

CA 2, 5 3

sunt a p u d nos asini . . o n e r a sibimet imposita sustinentes

CA 2, 8 7

494

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

opinio

ciborum opulentissimam claritatem

opinion, view M e i n u n g , Ansicht t a n t a e differentiae o p i n i o num

opus CA 2, 67

oportet it is necessary, it is r e q u i r e d , o n e m u s t es ist n ö t i g , es ist erforderlich, m a n muß quid oportet amplius dici..? h a s litteras A p i o n e m o p o r tebat inspicere o p o r t e t eos n o n i g n o r a r e m a n e etenim aperto temp l o o p o r t e b a t facientes t r a d i t a s hostias i n t r o i r e

CA 2, 5 9 2, 6 2 2, 8 9 2, 105

oportunus f a v o u r a b l e , suitable; n o n o p o r t u n e = u n s u i t a b l y (?) günstig, passend; non oportune = u n p a s s e n d (?) c u m . . n o n o p o r t u n e ius eius civilitatis o p t i n e a n t

CA 2, 71

optineo

CA 2, 8 7 = l a b o u r (which h a s to b e p e r f o r m e d ) — C A 2, 5 7 . 6 9 = d e e d , a c t i o n — C A 2, 8 2 . 102 = fact CA 2, 8 7 = (zu v e r r i c h t e n d e ) A r b e i t — CA 2, 5 7 . 6 9 = T a t , T u n — C A 2, 8 2 . 102 = T a t s a c h e iniustitiae et m a l o r u m o p e rum e t i a m h o c o p u s s e m p e r est additum q u o m o d o n o n intellexit operibus increpatus [h.e. Tolç ëpyoïç £ÇeÀr|À,£Ynivoç (Niese)] d e i n c r e d i b i l i suo mendacio? operibus . . ministrantes (sc. asini) insensatos e n i m n o n verbis sed operibus decet arguere

[CA 2, 92]

Z a b i d o n v e r o fecisse q u o d dam machinamentum l i g n e u m . . et in e o très o r d i n e s infixisse l u c e r narum

Speise

costly

2, 102

CA 2, 113

pabulum food

reich, aufwendig

2, 87

row

besetzen, in Besitz n e h m e n , i n n e h a b e n

rich,

2, 8 2

ordo

t o o c c u p y , t a k e possession of, possess

opulentus

2, 6 9

P

[obtineo]

c u m . . n o n o p o r t u n e ius eius civilitatis [civitatis R e i n a c h ] o p t i n e a n t [obtineant N a b e r ] c u m . . bello v i n c e n t e s o p tinuerint [obtinuerunt R C P et e d . p r . : obänuere Naber] templum

CA 2, 57

Reihe

[ops] ilium . . adorasse regis ingressum tamquam m a x i m u m ei s o l a c i u m praebiturum [maximam sibi opem praebituri G e lenius]

CA 2, 110

CA 2, 71

p a b u l u m ineffabile paenitentia

2, 8 2

CA 2, 110

[poenitentia]

repentance; paenitentiam agere = to repent Reue; paenitentiam zeigen

agere =

e x his q u a e i a m e g e r a t . . p a e n i t e n t i a m [poenitentiam N a b e r ] egit

Reue

CA 2, 5 5

A

495

CONCORDANCE

palam

q u o m o d o e u m in s u a m patriam rex non . . deduxit..?

manifest offenkundig quid enim sapiant. . de J u d a e i s . . p a l a m est

CA 2, 6 3

2, 101

patrius traditional, native, national überliefert, ü b e r k o m m e n , heimisch, des L a n d e s

parens b e g e t t e r , father

patria iura transcendere

Erzeuger, Vater m a r i t u m et p a r e n t e m c o m m u n i u m filiorum

CA 2, 5 9

CA 2, 7 3

paueus p a u c i = few pauci = wenige

pariter in t h e s a m e w a y , likewise in gleicher W e i s e , g l e i c h e r m a ß e n solis i m p e r a t o r i b u s h u n c honorem praecipuum pariter exhibemus mentientes autem pariter et de n o s t r o t e m p l o blasphemias componentes incongruas

CA 2, 77

CA 2, 9 6

pecunia money

2, 79

particulariter in p a r t s , in shifts, in g r o u p s teilweise, geteilt, g r u p p e n w e i s e fit t a r n e n o b s e r v a t i o p a r ticulariter p e r dies certos

p a u e o s i a m dies de vita sibimet superesse

CA 2, 108

Geld illud c a p u t . . ex a u r o c o m p o s i t u m , multis p e c u n i i s dignum egestate p e c u n i a r u m ad h o c accessit pecuniis indigentem Antiochum propter egestatem pecuniarum

CA 2, 8 0

2, 8 3 2, 8 4 2, 9 0

per pater CA 2, 8 9 . 9 9 . 108. 1 1 1 . 113

father Vater p a t r u m et u x o r u m rumque

perago filio-

CA 2, 7 4

paternus traditional, native, national ü b e r k o m m e n , h e i m i s c h , des L a n d e s p a t e r n o s q u e d e o s et sepulera progenitorum depop u l a t a est

CA 2, 5 8

55 = to carry out, c o m m i t — 77 = t o offer (sacrifices) 5 5 = vollführen, b e g e h e n — C A = (Opfer) d a r b r i n g e n

ne tantam impietatem perageret c u m nullas alias hostias . . peragamus

CA 2, 5 5 2, 77

peragro t o w a n d e r t h r o u g h , w a n d e r a b o u t in

patria

d u r c h w a n d e r n , u m h e r z i e h e n in

country, h o m e Vaterland, Heimat p a t r i a e i n i m i c u m . . et infid e l e m circa suos a m i c o s

CA 2, CA 2, CA 2, 2, 77

CA 2, 5 8

d u m peragraret provinciam p r o p t e r vitae cau­ sam

CA 2, 9 3

496

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

percipio

verharren, bleiben

to receive, obtain

in

empfangen, erhalten, b e k o m m e n percipiensque regnum a primo Caesare a p r a e c e d e n t i b u s claves t e m p l i . . percipiunt

CA 2, 5 8 2, 108

2, 6 9

to g r a n t

to bring (someone to d o something), motivate (someone to d o something) j e m a n d e n z u etwas) b r i n g e n , b e w e g e n hoc usque perducta est, u t

CA 2, 6 0

erweisen hunc honorem . . quem h o m i n u m nulli p e r s o l vimus

CA 2, 77

p e s s i m u s —> m a l u s

peregrinor

pietas

t o stay a b r o a d

w o r s h i p of G o d , divine service, w o r ­ ship

im Ausland weilen a l i q u a n d o c i r c a [apud G e lenius] n o s p e r e g r i n a r i

CA 2, 9 9

peregrinus foreign, alien, f o r e i g n e r ausländisch, fremd,

CA 2, 67

persolvo

perduco

ad

legibus a principio constitutis . . p e r m a n serunt nostrum vero genus permansit p u r u m

Fremder

p e r e g r i n o s v o c a n t eos comprehendere . . Graecum peregrinum

CA 2, 71 2, 9 5

Gottesverehrung, Gottesdienst, Kult purissimam pietatem de pietate loqui t a n t a v e r o est circa o m n i a P r o v i d e n t i a pietatis sciens templi nostri pietatem

CA 2, 8 2 2, 8 9 2, 105 2, 110

pius God-fearing, pious

pereo

gottesfürchtig,

to perish umkommen in q u a n d a m f o v e a m r e l i q u a hominis pereuntis abicere

CA 2, 9 5

perimo to m u r d e r umbringen p e r e m i t a u t e m et f r a t r e m insidiis si p o s s e t i p s a m a n u s u a J u d a e o s [Judaeos s e c l . B o y s e n : se (i.e. ei 8\>va x a i ai)xf^v orüTOxetp cpoveveiv vel simile) R e i ­ nach] perimere permaneo t o r e m a i n , stay

CA 2, 5 8 2, 6 0

fromm

suscipiunt h o n o r e s sicut d a r e offerentes p i u m at­ q u e l e g i t i m u m est p u t a r i p i u s et G r a e c o r u m a m a t o r eximius t a m q u a m piissimos [piissimos (i.e. 8eiai8<x{|!ova<;) con. Niese: piissimus c o d d . ] d e r i d e t (sc. nos)

CA 2, 73

2, 101 2, 112

plaga blow Schlag multas valde piagas acc i p i u n t (sc. asini) plenus full, filled, rich in voll, gefüllt, r e i c h a n

CA 2, 8 7

497

A CONCORDANCE

templum auro argentoque plenum fabulam d e r o g a t i o n e n o s t r a plenam mensam . . dapibus plenam huiusmodi ergo fabula . . omni tragoedia pleniss i m a est

CA 2, 8 4 2, 8 9

pono 2, 91 2, 97

p l u r i m u s —> p l u s plus, plurimus plus = m o r e — p l u r i m i = m o s t , v e r y m a n y (people) plus = m e h r — p l u r i m i = die m e i s t e n , s e h r viele plurimi eorum Aegyptios et p l u r i m o s alios plus q u a m q u i n q u e milia

CA 2, 71 2, 9 9 2, 108

poena punishment

CA 2, 7 8 = t o b r i n g f o r w a r d , g i v e — p o s i t u m esse = t o b e CA 2 , 7 8 = v o r b r i n g e n , g e b e n — p o s i t u m esse = sich b e f i n d e n o m n e s v e r o J u d a e o s in civitate positos cur omnes nos culpat u b i q u e positos . .? haec itaque communiter satisfactio p o s i t a sit a d versus A p i o n e m p r o his, q u a e d e A l e x a n d r i a dicta sunt e r a n t in e o (sc. t e m p l o ) solu m m o d o posita altare mensa turibulum cande­ labrum

CA 2, 5 3 2, 6 8 2, 7 8

2, 106

populus

Strafe ilia q u i d e m p o e n a m subiit competentem

CA 2, 61

polleo to b e i m p o r t a n t b e d e u t e n d sein templo a p u d cunctos homin e s n o m i n a t o et t a n t a sanctitate p o l l e n t e

people Volk nequaquam populo Macedonicam habente constantiam et i m p e r a t o r e s et p o p u l u m Romanorum [Romanum Naber]

[ p o e n i t e n t i a ] —» p a e n i t e n t i a

CA 2, 79

CA 2, 70

2, 7 6

totius p o p u l i t e s t i m o n i u m

2, 107

porro CA 2, 6 9 . 75

pollutio

porticus

defilement

p i l l a r e d hall, p o r t i c o , c o u r t

Befleckung

Säulenhalle, H o f

cuncti J u d a e i . . eorumq u e c o n i u g e s , c u m essent a b o m n i p o l l u t i o n e mundae

CA 2, 104

pompa solemn procession; c u m p o m p a solemnly, w i t h g r e a t e x p e n d i t u r e feierlicher Aufzug; c u m p o m p a feierlich, m i t g r o ß e m A u f w a n d quomodo

p a t n a m rex non cum p o m p a d e d u x i t . .?

eum

in s u a m

quattuor . . h a b u i t . . porticus (sc. t e m p l u m ) in s e c u n d a v e r o p o r t i c u [secundum vero porticum Sobius] cuncti J u d a e i ingrediebantur

CA 2, 103 2, 104

= porto =

CA 2, 101

to c a r r y , t a k e tragen, bringen n e c vas a l i q u o d p o r t a r i licet in t e m p l u m

CA 2, 106

498

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

posco

potior

t o r e q u e s t , ask for

potius = rather

erbitten, bitten urn

potius = vielmehr

p r o c i d e n t e m a d eius g e n u a extensa dextra poposcisse l i b e r t a t e m

CA 2, 9 2

possibilis possible möglich q u o m o d o possibile est, ut . . o m n e s J u d a e i c o l l i g e r e n t u r . . sicut ait Apion?

n o n p o t i u s illam (sc. C l e o p a t r a m ) r e d a r g u e r e studuit c u m potius debuerit admirari h a e c igitur A p i o n d e b u i t r e s p i c e r e , nisi c o r asini ipse p o t i u s h a b u i s s e t

CA 2, 5 6

2, 73 2, 8 5

CA 2, 100 potus drink Trank

possum

cibum aut potum

CA 2, 6 0 . 6 3 . 8 8 . 1 0 1 . [109]

praebeo

CA 2, 108

t o g r a n t , give

post CA 2, 5 4 . 7 6

gewähren, geben etiam principibus ac dominis hunc h o n o r e m praebere q u i ei h u i u s m o d i f o m i t e m praebuerunt ilium . . a d o r a s s e regis ingressum t a m q u a m m a x i ­ m u m ei s o l a c i u m p r a e b i t u r u m [maximam sibi opem praebituri G e l e n i u s ]

postea CA 2, 9 4 postremum CA 2, 9 4 potentia m i g h t , sovereign p o w e r

CA 2, 74

2, 79 2, 9 2

Macht, herrscherliche Gewalt p o r r o n o s t e r legislator [hoc improbavit vel simile excidit ( R e i n a c h ) ] , n o n quasi p r o p h e t a n s R o m a norum potentiam non h o n o r a n d a m . . totius a n i m a t i . . inanimatas . . i n t e r d i x i t i m a g i n e s fa­ b r i c a r i [porro - fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

praecedo to precede, be a predecessor v o r a n g e h e n , V o r g ä n g e r sein a p r a e c e d e n t i b u s claves templi. . percipiunt

CA 2, 108

praecipuus extraordinary außerordentlich solis i m p e r a t o r i b u s h u n c honorem praecipuum pariter exhibemus

potestas strength, value, importance

CA 2, 77

Kraft, Geltung, B e d e u t u n g n o s i t a q u e asinis n e q u e h o norem neque potestatem aliquam damus

CA 2, 8 6

praedico to say before (previously); q u a e p r a e d i c t a s u n t = t h a t w h i c h w a s discussed zuvor sagen; q u a e praedicta sunt = w o v o n die R e d e w a r

499

A CONCORDANCE

haec . . quae praedicta sunt per ea . . m a l a . , q u a e praedicta sunt, nobis detrahere temptaverunt

CA 2, 107 2, 111

praeter CA 2, 109 praetermitto t o p a s s over, m a k e n o m e n t i o n of ü b e r g e h e n , u n e r w ä h n t lassen

[ p r a e l i u m ] —> p r o e l i u m praeparatio (the a c t of) p r e p a r i n g , s u p p l y i n g

sciens templi nostri pietatem, hanc quidem praetermisit

CA 2, 110

V o r b e r e i t u n g , Bereitstellung cuncta dapium praeparat i o n e [apparatione G e l e ­ nius] saginari

CA 2, 9 3

primum CA 2, 9 4 primus

praeparo

CA 2, 5 8

to p r e p a r e princeps

vorbereiten in c o n t r a r i u m q u a e p r a e paraverat evenerunt ilia, q u a e a d sacrificia praeparantur

CA 2, 5 3 2, 109

praesto

etiam principibus ac dominis h u n c h o n o r e m praebere principes sacerdotum

to assist beistehen volentes enim Antiocho praestare

CA 2, 7 4

2, 104

CA 2, 9 0 principatus imperial rank

praesumo

herrscherliche Rangstellung

CA 2, 9 8 = to suspect, e x p e c t — t o d a r e CA 2, 9 8 = v e r m u t e n , e r w a r t e n — wagen cum adversum exercitum quidem Oniae pugnare non praesumeret Judaeos accusare praesumpsit eius filio . . rebellare p r a e sumpsit e diverso n a m q u e f a c t u m est q u o d n o b i s i m p r o perare praesumunt in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o Apion praesumpsit edic e r e asini c a p u t collocasse J u d a e o s q u i d e pie täte loqui p r a e sumunt non enim praesumpsit aliquid tale

CA 2 , 7 4 = e m p e r o r — p r i n c e p s s a c e r d o t u m (CA 2, 104) = h i g h priest CA 2 , 7 4 = Kaiser—princeps s a c e r d o t u m (CA 2 , 104) = H o h e r priester

CA 2, 5 3

tradere . . exercitum principatum

et

CA 2, 5 9

in legibus a p r i n c i p i o c o n stitutis . . p e r m a n s e r u n t ipsi igitur m o l e s t i a e h u i u s fuere p r i n c i p i u m

CA 2, 6 7

principium b e g i n n i n g , origin

2, 5 6 2, 5 8 2, 71

Anfang, Ursprung

2, 70

prius 2, 8 0

first, first of all zuerst, zunächst

2, 8 9 2, 9 8

a d h a e c igitur p r i u s e q u i d e m dico

CA 2, 8 1

500

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

Privilegium right,

m a g n o et sine foedere

privilege profero

(Vor-) R e c h t , Privileg hoc Privilegium a dominis impetrasse

CA 2, 71

v e r b a i n c r e d u l a protulisse historiae . . veram notitiam . . proferre

privo t o a b s o l v e (from s o m e t h i n g ) (von etwas) befreien n o n tarnen a sacrilegio privat Antiochum

to p r e s e n t darbieten CA 2, 109 2, 109

progigno CA 2, 97

p r o g e n i t i = a n c e s t o r s , forefathers progeniti = Ahnen, Vorfahren

pro CA 2, 5 2 . 77. 7 7 . 7 8 . 9 4

sepulcra progenitorum d e p o p u l a t a est

probo

prohibeo

CA 2, 5 8

t o p r e v e n t , p r o h i b i t , forbid

to show, prove

abhalten, hindern, verbieten

dartun, beweisen p o r r o . . totius a n i m a t i . . inanimatas, ut probatur inferius, interdixit i m a g ­ ines fabricari [porrofabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

procido t o t h r o w oneself (at s o m e o n e ' s feet) (zu j e m a n d e s F ü ß e n ) niederfallen p r o c i d e n t e m a d eius g e n u a

CA 2, 9 2

procul far

a s p e c t u m t e r r i b i l e m [h.e. SeivTjv öxjnv (Niese)] c o n t e m p l a t u s est p r o h i b e n t e m se, u t illis n o c e r e t hominibus aliis a u t e m h o n o r i b u s post d e u m colendos n o n p r o h i b u i t (sc. n o s t e r legis­ lator) viros b o n o s mulieres tantum modo m e n s t r u a t a e transire p r o hibebantur talia n a m q u e e t i a m a d alt a r e offerre p r o h i b i t u m est

CA 2, 5 4

2, 76

2, 103

2, 109

fern procul stantibus

CA 2, 113

promereo t o a c q u i r e deservedly

prodo

verdientermaßen erlangen

to e v o k e (?)

aperte a deo salutem promeruerunt

h e r v o r r u f e n (?) p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia bénéficia p r o d i d i s s e et d e t u l i s s e [bénéficia visa attulisse Gelenius] laetitiam proelium

CA 2, 9 4 promitto to a s s u r e , p r o m i s e zusichern, versprechen

[praelium]

battle Kampf proelio

[praelio

Naber]

CA 2, 55

CA 2, 6 5

sed t u r p e est; h i s t o r i a e e n i m [enim o m . Sobius] v e r a m n o t i t i a m se [si Sobius] p r o f e r r e g r a m maticus non promisit [compromisit c o n i . Niese: non possit Sobius]?

CA 2, 109

501

A CONCORDANCE

q u i a eis p r o m i s i s s e t t r a d i t u r u m se eis A p o l linem

2, 112

CA 2, 6 6 provenio

propheta

to b e successful, s u c c e e d

speaker, s p o k e s m a n Sprecher,

propterea

Erfolg h a b e n , g e l i n g e n

Wortführer

propheta vero aliorum factus est A p i o n

CA 2, 91

careful

to p r o p h e s y , p r e d i c t

CA 2, 75

t a n t a v e r o est c i r c a o m n i a P r o v i d e n t i a pietatis

CA 2, 105

[provincia] fluminis c u s t o d i a m totiusq u e | c u s t o d i a e f [provinciae c o n i . Niese] d u m peragraret provinciam propter vitae causam

CA [2, 64]

2, 9 3

prudentia

propono CA 2, 91 = t o set (place) b e f o r e — v i a p r o p o s i t a (CA 2 , 87) = p r e s c r i b e d stretch of r o a d CA 2 , 91 = v o r s e t z e n , h i n s t e l l e n — v i a p r o p o s i t a (CA 2 , 87) = v o r g e ­ schriebener W e g

prudence Klugheit nequaquam populo Macedonicam habente constantiam neque prudentiam G r a e c a m

CA 2, 70

CA 2, 8 7 pugno t o fight (a battle) 2, 91

k ä m p f e n , e i n e S c h l a c h t liefern c u m adversum exercitum quidem Oniae pugnare non praesumeret

proprius p a r t i c u l a r , special besonderer q u a t t u o r . . p o r t i c u s , et h a r u m singulae p r o p riam . . h a b u e r e custo­ diam principes sacerdotum p r o p r i a stola c i r c u m a m i c t i

arrangement

sorgfältige R e g e l u n g

prophezeien, verkünden

licet. . viam propositam [aut proposita ed. pr.] n o n a d i m p l e a n t (sc. asini) p r o p o s i t a m [appositam G e lenius] ei m e n s a m

CA 2, 8 8

Providentia

propheto

p o r r o n o s t e r legislator [hoc improbavit vel simile excidit ( R e i n a c h ) ] , n o n quasi p r o p h e t a n s R o m a norum potentiam non h o n o r a n d a m . . totius animati. . inanimatas . . interdixit i m a g i n e s fab­ r i c a r i [porro-fabric ari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

nulla potest contra nos blasphemia provenire

CA 2, 5 3

purificatio CA 2, 103

cleanliness, p u r i t y Reinhaltung, Reinheit

2, 104

c o n s t r u c t i o n e m templi nostri . . et i n t r a n s g r e s s i b i l e m eius purificationis integritatem

CA 2, 102

propter CA 2, 5 2 . 5 6 . 6 9 . 9 0 . 9 3

purifico in a religious sense: t o purify in k u l t i s c h e m S i n n : r e i n i g e n

502

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

masculi J u d a e o r u m m u n d i existentes atque purificati

CA 2, 104

-que CA 2, 5 8 . 5 8 . 5 8 . 6 1 . 6 4 . [66.] 7 1 . 7 3 . 74. 8 2 . 8 4 . 9 1 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 104. 107. 112. 112

purus

quemadmodum

pure, unalloyed rein, lauter

CA 2, 6 0

nostrum vero genus permansit p u r u m purissimam pietatem

CA 2, 6 9 qui 2, 8 2

(pronoun) (Pronomen)

puto t o believe, t h i n k ; Passive: t o b e r e ­ puted g l a u b e n , m e i n e n ; Passiv: g e l t e n putasne gloriandum nobis n o n esse . .? n o n se p u t a n t i m p i e a g e r e p u t a r i p i u s et G r a e c o r u m a m a t o r eximius

CA 2, 6 0 2, 7 9 2, 101

CA 2, 5 2 . 5 3 . 5 5 . 5 5 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 6 1 . 6 1 . 62. 65. 65. 67. 68. 71. 71. 73. 7 6 . 7 7 . 7 8 . 7 9 . 8 1 . 8 2 . 8 2 . [84.] 8 5 . 86. 87. 89. 89. 90. 90. 92. 94. 97. 9 8 . 102. 106. 107. 108. 109. 111. 111. 112. 112. 112. [112] quia CA 2, 7 3 . 8 3 . 112 quicumque

Q. CA 2, 100 qualis CA 2, 102 quam CA 2, 6 4 . 8 9 . 9 0 . 108 quando CA 2, 8 6 . 8 8 [quantus] [CA 2, 98] quantusvis CA 2, 9 8 quare CA 2, 7 9 quartus CA 2, 104 quasi CA 2, 7 5 . 113 quattuor CA 2, 1 0 3 . 108

quidam CA 2, 74. 74. 9 4 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 105. 112. 112. 113 quidem CA 2, 5 3 . 5 4 . 5 5 . 5 8 . 6 1 . 72. 79. 9 3 . 9 4 . 9 5 . 9 5 . 1 0 1 . [106.] 110 quilibet CA 2, 6 9 . 7 2 . 79 quinque CA 2, 108 quippe CA 2, 87 quis CA 2, 5 9 . 6 3 . 6 7 . 74. 9 2 . 9 9 . 109 quisquam CA 2, 72 [quisquis] [CA 2, 9 8 ]

A

503

CONCORDANCE

quod

rebello t o revolt, b r e a k a w a y

CA 2, 5 5 . 6 0 . 6 8 . [91]

sich e m p ö r e n , abfallen quomodo

eius filio et successori r e bellare

CA 2, 5 8

CA 2, 6 5 . 6 5 . 8 2 . 100. 101 rectus quoniam CA 2, 5 6 . 6 6 . 7 3 . 7 5 . 79. 8 1 . 8 9

r e c t e = justly, w i t h r e a s o n recte = mit R e c h t , mit g u t e m G r u n d

quoque

u n d e recte h a n c diem J u daei . . celebrare noscuntur

CA 2, 8 4

CA 2, 5 5

[ q u o t i d i a n u s ] —> c o t i d i a n u s redarguo [ q u u m ] —> c u m

to accuse beschuldigen

R

n o n p o t i u s illam (sc. C l e o p a t r a m ) r e d a r g u e r e studuit

rapio to seize, d e v o u r a n sich r e i ß e n , v e r s c h l i n g e n q u i a b istis (sc. aspidibus) m o r d e n t u r et a c r o c o dillis [crocodilis R ] r a p i untur

redundo CA 2, 8 6

t o b e overfull, overflow, a b o u n d ü b e r v o l l sein, triefen, s t r o t z e n huiusmodi ergo fabula . . impudentia crudeli redundat

ratio manner, way

CA 2, 9 7

refero

Art u n d Weise d u m sit valde t u r p i s s i m u m liberis q u a l i b e t r a t i o n e mentiri h a e c . . h a b e n t totius p o p u l i testimonium manifestationemque [manifestum rationemque e d . p r . ] gestorum

CM 2, 5 6

CA 2, 79

[2, 107]

t o r e p o r t (in a book) (in e i n e r Schrift) b e r i c h t e n refert (sc. A p i o n ) e u m d i xisse illum (sc. M n a s e a m ) retulisse . . q u e n d a m e o r u m . . venisse a d J u d a e o s

CA 2, 9 6 2, 112

regalis ratiocinatio

g e n u s r e g a l e = royal d i g n i t y

r e a s o n a b l e a r g u m e n t (?)

g e n u s regale = K ö n i g s w ü r d e

vernünftiger G r u n d (?) n e q u e e n i m extrinsecus [i.e. e^coGev = sine (Boysen)] aliqua ratiocinatione m e n t i t u s est [neque - est corrupta? (Reinach)]

CA 2, 8 5

alios . . g e n e r e regali s p o Hans

CA 2, 5 8

regina queen Königin Cleopatrae Alexandrinor u m reginae

CA 2, 5 6

504

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

[regio] q u e m e n i m h o r u m [cuius enim regionis homines G e l e n i u s : enim = ôf| a u t ox>v (Reinach)] n o n contigit a l i q u a n d o circa n o s p e r e g r i n a r i . .?

[CA 2, 99]

hominis pereuntis cere

abi-

renovo to d o a n e w , d o a g a i n a n d a g a i n aufs n e u e t u n , i m m e r w i e d e r m a c h e n renovata coniuratione

CA 2, 9 9

regnum res

kingdom, reign Königreich,

Herrschaft

u t ipse r e g n u m iniuste sibimet applicaret percipiensque regnum a primo Caesare

CA 2, 51 2, 5 8

religio CA 2, 8 0 = divine service, cultic v e n ­ e r a t i o n — C A 2, 6 5 = religion CA 2 , 8 0 = G o t t e s d i e n s t , k u l t i s c h e V e r e h r u n g — C A 2, 6 5 Religion q u o m o d o . . inter alterutros proelio . . de religione contenditis? in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o . . asini c a p u t collocasse J u d a e o s et e u m colere a c d i g n u m facere t a n t a reli­ gione

CA 2, 6 5

2, 8 0

Antoniumque corrumpens amatoriis rebus his r e b u s i n d i g n o s esse ad agriculturam rebus necessariis c e r t e e x r e b u s [ex rebus c o r r u p t a (Reinach)] initia s u m e n s h a e c implere n o n valuit m e n d a c i i superfluitas, q u a m ex ipsa re c o g n o s c e r e valide facillimum est nulla re, q u a e a d c i b u m a u t p o t u m a d t i n e a t , in t e m plo delata

CA 2, 5 8 2, 6 4 2, 87 2, 8 8

2, 9 8

2, 108

to c o n s i d e r

CA 2, 5 9 = t o l e a v e , a b a n d o n — C A 2, 5 4 = t o t a k e n o n o t i c e of, leave u n ­ t o u c h e d — ( a s a n a u t h o r in a book) n o t t o p u r s u e (a subject) f u r t h e r CA 2 , 5 9 = v e r l a s s e n , i m S t i c h l a s s e n — C A 2, 5 4 = n i c h t b e a c h t e n , liegen l a s s e n — ( a l s A u t o r in e i n e r Schrift e i n e n G e g e n s t a n d ) n i c h t weiter verfolgen CA 2, 5 4 2, 5 9 2, 102

reliquus

bedenken h a e c igitur A p i o n debuit respicere

reliqua = Überreste CA 2, 9 5

CA 2, 8 5

respondeo to answer antworten cui r e s p o n d e o a d h a e c igitur p r i u s e q u i d e m d i c o [dico o m . ed. p r . : respondeo ins. G e l e nius]

CA 2, 6 5 [2, 81]

[revereor] e r u b e s c e n s [reveritus G e l e nius] G r a e c o r u m d e o s

reliqua = remains

in q u a n d a m foveam reliqua

t h i n g — f a c t — a m a t o r i a res (CA = love-affair D i n g — T a t s a c h e — a m a t o r i a res 58) = LiebesafFäre

respicio

relinquo

elephanti. . relinquentes sibi a p p o s i t o s J u d a e o s illum i p s u m in n a v a l i certamine reliquens sed h a e c r e l i n q u o

object, 2, 58) Sache, (CA 2,

CA [2, 96]

A

CONCORDANCE

rex king König Alios regis fidem, q u a m h a b u i t circa reges, n e q u a q u a m in necessitate d e s e r u i t m a x i m a m . . eis (sc. J u d a e i s ) fidem . . a regibus d a t a m neque regum quisquam . . neque . . quilibet imperatorum nos a u t e m Alexander quid e m introduxit, reges autem auxerunt defendere sacrilegum regem ilium v e r o m o x a d o r a s s e regis i n g r e s s u m i u b e n t e rege, u t confideret q u o m o d o e u m in s u a m patriam rex n o n . . ded u x i t . .?

CA 2, 51 2, 5 2

2, 6 4

principes sacerdotum secundum quasdam horas sacerdotes ingredi licet e n i m sint t r i b u s q u a t t u o r [viginti quattuor coni. Ottius] sacerdotum u b i n e c nobilissimos J u d a e o r u m licet i n t r a r e , nisi fuerint s a c e r d o t e s

505 2, 104 2, 105 2, 108

2, 110

sacerdotalis 2, 72

priesdy priesterlich

2, 72

s a c e r d o t e s stolis i n d u t i sacerdotalibus

2, 9 0

sacrarium

2, 9 2 2, 9 2 2, 101

CA 2, 104

sanctuary Heiligtum in h o c e n i m s a c r a r i o . . asini c a p u t collocasse Judaeos

CA 2, 8 0

sacrificium rogo

victim, sacrifice

to r e q u e s t

Opfer

bitten rogasse, u t . . l i b e r a r e t

CA 2, 9 6

[rudis] aut omnium [rudissimus Apion ad d u m verba

gurdissimus S o b i u s ] fuit componenfallacia

[CA 2, 88]

facimus . . c o n t i n u a sacrificia alii s u c c e d e n t e s a d sacrificia v e n i u n t ilia, q u a e a d sacrificia praeparantur

CA 2, 77 2, 108 2, 109

sacrifico t o offer (a sacrifice)

rursus, rursum

opfern

CA 2, 105. 112

occidere . . e u m h o m i n e m eiusque corpus sacrificare

S

sacrilegium

sacerdos priest

sacrilege

Priester

T e m p e l r a u b , Sakrileg

m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r templa transire q u a m sacerdotibus scelesta v e r b a confingere s a c e r d o t e s stolis i n d u t i sacerdotalibus

CA 2, 9 5

CA 2, 8 9

2, 104

infidelitatem ac sacrileg i u m eius t e g e r e n o n tarnen a sacrilegio privat A n t i o c h u m

CA 2, 9 0 2, 9 7

506

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

sacrilegus

sapio

s a c r i l e g i o u s , guilty of a sacrilegious deed t e m p e l r ä u b e r i s c h , m i t e i n e m Religions frevel belastet defendere sacrilegum regern

to t h i n k (intelligently) (verständig) d e n k e n quid enim sapiant omnes imperatores de Judaeis

CA 2, 6 3

CA 2, 9 0 sat enough

sagino

genug

t o fatten h o c d i c e r e sat erit

mästen cuncta dapium praeparatione saginari comprehendere . . Graecum peregrinum eum­ q u e a n n a l i t e m p o r e sa­ ginare

CA 2, 9 3 2, 9 5

salus welfare, security (against g r e a t danger), deliverance H e i l , S i c h e r h e i t (vor g r o ß e r G e f a h r ) , Rettung aperte a deo salutem p r o meruerunt salutem hinc sperare

CA 2, 5 5 2, 6 0

sanctitas holiness, v e n e r a b l e n e s s

CA 2, 79

sanguis Blut CA 2, 9 6

angemessene Erwiderung haec itaque communiter satisfactio p o s i t a sit a d ­ versus A p i o n e m p r o his, quae de Alexandria dicta sunt

CA 2, 78

scelestus impious frevlerisch m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r templa transire q u a m sacerdotibus scelesta v e r b a confingere

CA 2, 8 9

of c o u r s e , q u i t e n a t u r a l l y wie selbstverständlich, ganz lich

natür­

CA 2, 70

scio to h a v e k n o w l e d g e of, b e a c q u a i n t e d with wissen, k e n n e n

2, 9 9

sapiens wise, r a t i o n a l , r e a s o n a b l e weise, v e r n ü n f t i g , v e r s t ä n d i g s a p i e n t e s viros

a p p r o p r i a t e reply

c u n c t i s scilicet u t e n t i b u s malis moribus Aegyptiorum

blood

erubescens G r a e c o r u m deos et f s u p e r a n s f [superans G e l e n i u s : superantes c o d d . ] in s u o s a n g u i n e insidias J u d a e o r u m effusionem s a n g u i n i s

satisfactio

scilicet

Heiligkeit, E h r w ü r d i g k e i t t e m p l o . . tanta sanctitate pollente

CA 2, 8 9

CA 2, 8 7

sciunt. . constructionem templi nostri, qualis fuerit sciens t e m p l i n o s t r i p i e tatem

CA 2, 102

2, 110

se, sibimet CA 2, 5 1 . 5 4 . 5 4 . 5 7 . 5 9 . 6 0 . [60.] 74.

507

A CONCORDANCE

79. 8 7 . [92.] 9 3 . 9 3 9 4 . 9 4 . 9 6 . 109. 112. 113 secundum CA 2, 6 2 . 9 5 . 1 0 3 . 105

folgen tradere e u m exercitum . . et se sequi coégit

CA 2, 5 9

servus slave

secundus

Sklave CA 2, 104 sed CA 2, 5 9 . 6 1 . 6 5 . 6 9 . 70. 7 3 . 7 5 . 8 2 . 8 3 . 8 7 . 8 8 . 9 3 . 9 7 . 9 8 . 9 9 . 102. 102. 106. 109

servos diligentes hoc faciunt servos ingredientes u b i n e c nobilissimos J u d a e o r u m licet i n t r a r e

CA 2, 7 4 2, 110

si

seditio

CA 2, 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 3 . 6 5 . 6 7 . 6 7 . 6 8 . 7 4 . 8 1 . [87.] [109.] 112

sedition Aufruhr seditionis causas n o b i s a p ponit seditionis a u c t o r e s nullam seditionem adversus n o s g e s s e r u n t

CA 2, 6 8

CA 2, 7 3 . 8 2 . 8 6 . 9 7 . 9 8 . 100 2, 6 9 2, 6 9

silva w o o d , forest Wald

seductio

deductum silvam

seduction, misleading Verführung,

sicut

Irreleitung

mendacium . . ad eorum seductionem, qui noluerint discutere veritatem

CA 2, 111

ad

quandam

CA 2, 9 5

similis similar, of t h e s a m e t y p e ähnlich, "vom Schlage" Apionis similes A l e x a n d r i n o r u m . . cives

semper

CA 2, 6 9

CA 2, 6 9 . 72. 8 2 sine senatus

CA 2, 6 5 . 8 2 . 9 8

(Roman) Senate (römischer) S e n a t senatu eiusque d o g m a t i b u s testimonia . . q u a e a senatu constituta sunt

singuli CA 2, 61 2, 6 2

sepulcrum tomb Grab sepulcra p r o g e n i t o r u m d e p o p u l a t a est sequor to follow

CA 2, 5 8

e a c h individual o n e ; singulis a n n i s (CA 2, 94) = e v e r y y e a r , a n n u a l l y j e d e r e i n z e l n e ; singulis a n n i s (CA 2, 94) = j e d e s J a h r , j ä h r l i c h h o c illos f a c e r e singulis annis q u a t t u o r . . p o r t i c u s , et h a r u m singulae p r o p riam . . h a b u e r e c u s t o diam h a r u m t r i b u u m singulae

CA 2, 9 4 2, 103

2, 108

508

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

siquidem CA 2, 111

salutem hinc sperare invenit n o n s p e r a n s

[socius]

spolio

s u p e r n o s a u x i l i a t o r e s [socios insuper nos G e l e n i u s ] suos et a m i c o s adgressus est

[CA 2, 83]

to d e p r i v e berauben alios . . g e n e r e regali s p o lians A n t i o c h u m . . expoliasse [ N i e s e (ed. m i n . ) : et spoliasse c o d d . : exspoliasse Reinach] templum auro argentoque plenum

solacium support, help U n t e r s t ü t z u n g , Hilfe maximo Caesare utimur teste solacii [solatii codd.: auxilii G e l e n i u s ] a t q u e fidei m a x i m u m . . solacium assumere vero contra J u d a e o r u m o d i u m solacia [auxilia Gelenius] m a g n a cunctorum

CA 2, 6 0 2, 9 8

CA 2, 5 8 [2, 84]

CA 2, 61 spontaneus voluntary, intentional, capricious 2, 9 2 2, 101

absichtlich, willkürlich mendacium spontaneum

CA 2, 111

statuo to set u p aufstellen

sollemnitas religious s o l e m n i t y , s o l e m n c e r e m o n y religiöse Feierlichkeit, feierliche Z e r e monie

q u i a i m p e r a t o r u m n o n statuamus imagines

CA 2, 73

Stella antiquis . . sollemnitatibus occidere . . e u m h o m i n e m e i u s q u e c o r p u s sacrific a r e s e c u n d u m suas sollemnitates

CA 2, 6 9 2, 9 5

Stern quasi stellae p e r t e r r a m rnv rcopeiav 7ioioa)nevo)v

solummodo

CA 2, 113

sterilitas

CA 2, 106 solus,

star

c r o p failure Mißernte

solum

sterilitatis a c n e c e s s i t a t i s frumentorum

(adverb) (Àdverb)

CA 2, 6 3

sto

CA 2, 7 7 . 7 7 . 9 9 . 9 9 . 104

to s t a n d soror

stehen

sister procul stantibus

Schwester q u a e e t i a m s o r o r e m Arsin o è n occidit spero t o e x p e c t , h o p e for erwarten,

erhoffen

CA 2, 5 7

CA 2, 113

stola l o n g g a r m e n t , v e s t m e n t s (of t h e h i g h priest) l a n g e s G e w a n d , O r n a t (des H o h e n priesters)

A sacerdotes stolis i n d u t i sacerdotalibus principes sacerdotum p r o p r i a stola c i r c u m a m i c t i

509

CONCORDANCE

CA 2, 104

d i r e p t u m se subito a b alienigenis h o m i n i b u s

CA 2, 9 3

2, 104 succedo to s u c c e e d , take t h e p l a c e of

studeo

nachfolgen, ablösen

to e n d e a v o u r alii s u c c e d e n t e s a d crificia v e n i u n t

sich b e m ü h e n n o n potius patram) duit studuerunt rilegum

illam (sc. G l e o r e d a r g u e r e stu-

CA 2, 5 6

d e f e n d e r e sacregem

2, 9 0

sa-

CA 2, 108

successor successor Nachfolger eius filio et successori

CA 2, 5 8

stupor sufficio

shock, b e w i l d e r m e n t

t o suffice

Betroffenheit p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia bénéficia prodidisse . . laetitiam, deinde suspicionem, postea stuporem

CA 2, 9 4

genügen q u o m o d o possibile est, u t . . tantis milibus a d g u s t a n d u m v i s c e r a ilia sufficerent, sicut ait Apion?

CA 2, 100

sub sum

CA 2, 6 2 subeo to suffer erleiden ilia q u i d e m p o e n a m subiit competentem

CA 2, 61

subicio CA 2, 5 3 = to cast before—CA 2, 7 3 = to m a k e subject CA 2, 5 3 = v o r w e r f e n — C A unterwerfen cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, o m n e s v e r o J u ­ daeos . . capiens nudos a t q u e vinctos e l e p h a n t i s subiecisset (Romani) subiectos non cogunt patria iura transcendere

2, 7 3 = CA 2, 5 3

2, 7 3

CA 2, 5 4 . 5 5 . 5 6 . 5 8 . 5 9 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 6 0 . 62. 63. 63. 64. 64. 64. 65. 65. 66. 67. 69. 69. 69. 70. 7 1 . 72. 72. 73. 7 3 . 74. 74. 7 8 . 7 8 . 7 9 . 7 9 . 8 0 . 8 1 . 81. 8 1 . 82. 8 3 . 8 3 . 85. 87. 88. 89. 89. 90. 90. 90. 9 1 . 92. 92. 93. 97. 9 7 . 9 8 . 9 8 . 9 8 . 9 9 . 100. 100. 102. [103.] 104. 105. 105. 106. 106. 107. 108. 109. 109. 109. 110. 1 1 1 . 111 sumo to obtain—initia sumere = to proceed from sich z u l e g e n — i n i t i a s u m e r e = a u s ­ gehen von q u i d a m v e r o e t i a m nihil sibi c o m p e t e n t i u m sum u n t imagines certe ex r e b u s [ex rebus corr u p t a (Reinach)] initia sumens haec implere n o n valuit

subito suddenly

super

plötzlich

CA 2, 5 4 . 6 5 . 6 7 . 8 3 . 8 4

CA 2, 7 4

2, 8 8

510

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

superfluitas

sunt a p u d nos asini . . o n e r a sibimet imposita sustinentes

boundlessness Maßlosigkeit m e n d a c i i superfluitas

CA 2, 9 8

CA 2, 87

suus CA 2, 5 5 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 5 8 . 6 0 . 8 2 . 8 3 . 9 2 . 9 5 . 9 6 . 100. 1 0 1 . 112

supero to d e s t r o y , frustrate zunichte m a c h e n , vereiteln erubescens G r a e c o r u m deos et f s u p e r a n s f [superans G e l e n i u s : super antes c o d d . ] in s u o s a n g u i n e insidias J u d a e o r u m

T CA 2, 9 6 talis CA 2, 6 7 . 7 7 . 8 1 . 9 8 . 109

tarnen

supersum

CA 2, 9 7 . 108

to remain ü b r i g sein p a u c o s i a m dies de vita s i b i m e t superesse

tamquam CA 2, 9 6

CA 2, 7 3 . 7 5 . 9 2 . 112 [ t a n q u a m ] —> t a m q u a m

supplico to implore, request

tantum

anflehen, bitten concubina . . supplicante ne tantam impietatem p e r a g e r e t , ei concessit

[tanquam]

(adverb) CA 2, 5 5

(Adverb) CA 2, 9 7 tantummodo

suscipio

CA 2, 103

to accept, r e c e i v e — C A 2, 5 2 = to start (a w a r ) a n n e h m e n , b e k o m m e n — C A 2, 5 2 = (einen Krieg) a n f a n g e n adversus eum bellum . . suscepit suscipiunt h o n o r e s sicut d a r e offerentes p i u m a t q u e l e g i t i m u m est

CA 2, 5 2 2, 7 3

tantus CA 2, 5 5 . 6 7 . 7 9 . 8 0 . 100. 105 tego to take u n d e r one's protection in S c h u t z n e h m e n infidelitatem ac sacrileg i u m eius t e g e r e

CA 2, 9 0

suspicio templum

mistrust, suspicion Argwohn, Verdacht p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia bénéficia prodidisse . . laetitiam, deinde suspicionem sustineo to b e a r tragen

CA 2, 9 4

T e m p l e (at J e r u s a l e m ) ; CA 2, 5 7 (cf. 89) of a n o n - J e w i s h t e m p l e T e m p e l (in J e r u s a l e m ) ; CA 2 , 5 7 (vgl. 89) v o n e i n e m n i c h t j ü d i s c h e n Tempel q u a e etiam sororem Arsinoën occidit in t e m p l o de nostro templo blasphemias c o m p o n e n t e s incongruas

CA 2, 57 2, 79

511

A CONCORDANCE

templo apud cunctos homines nominato d u m Antiochus Epiphanes exspoliasset t e m p l u m c u m . . hello v i n c e n t e s o p tinuerint t e m p l u m n e q u e i u s t a m fecit t e m p l i depraedationem templum auro argentoque plenum m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r t e m p l a transire q u a m sac e r d o t i b u s scelesta v e r b a confingere iusta et v e r a c i a d e nostris et d e t e m p l o c o n s c r i b e r e A n t i o c h u m in t e m p l o i n v e nisse l e c t u m et h o m i n e m d i r e p t u m se . . a t q u e d e d u c t u m a d t e m p l u m et i n c l u s u m illic ut ad t e m p l u m accederet constructionem templi nostri m a n e etenim aperto templo o p o r t e b a t facientes t r a ditas hostias i n t r o i r e d u m clauderetur templum n e c vas a l i q u o d p o r t a r i licet in t e m p l u m c o n g r e g a t i in t e m p l u m a praecedentibus claves templi. . percipiunt nulla re, q u a e a d c i b u m a u t p o t u m a d t i n e a t in t e m ­ p l o [templum G e l e n i u s ] delata sciens t e m p l i n o s t r i p i e t a tem v e n t u r u m q u e illum (sc. A p o llinem) a d n o s t r u m t e m ­ plum tempto

2, 79 2, 8 0 2, 82 2, 8 3 2, 8 4 2, 89

2, 90 2, 91

Zeit; t e m p o r u m 84) = C h r o n i s t

c o n s c r i p t o r (CA

famis t e m p o r e p r o p t e r confusiones t e m p o rum Castor t e m p o r u m conscript o r [chronographus G e l e ­ nius] q u o d a m t e m p o r e constituto comprehendere . . Graecum peregrinum eumq u e a n n a l i t e m p o r e saginare longo q u o d a m tempore

2,

CA 2, 6 0 2, 69 2, 8 4

2, 9 4 2, 95

2, 112

[ t e n t o ] —> t e m p t o terra

2, 9 3 2, 9 8 2, 102

earth Erde q u a s i stellae p e r t e r r a m rf^v rcopeictv 7toio\)|ievcov

CA 2 , 113

2, 105 terrenus from t h e l a n d 2, 105 2, 106 2, 108 2, 108

von der Erde hervorgebracht, Land stammend mensam maritimis terren i s q u e et v o l a t i l i u m d a ­ pibus plenam

vom

CA 2, 9 1

2, 108 terribilis horrible 2, 110 2, 112

schrecklich a s p e c t u m terribilem [h.e. ôeivTiv ö y i v (Niese)] c o n t e m p l a t u s est p r o h i b e n t e m se, u t illis n o c e r e t hominibus

CA 2 , 5 4

[tento] tertius

to attempt

CA 2, 104

versuchen p e r ea . . m a l a . , nobis detrahere temptaverunt [tentavere N a b e r ]

CA 2, 111

testimonium testimony Zeugnis

tempus t i m e ; t e m p o r u m c o n s c r i p t o r (CA 2 , 84) = c h r o n i c l e r

examinare testimonia sub A l e x a n d r a facta et o m ­ nibus Ptolomaeis

CA 2 , 6 2

512

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

totius p o p u l i t e s t i m o n i u m

2, 107

testis

his t r a n s a c t i s alii s u c c e d e n t e s a d sacrificia v e niunt

witness Zeuge testis . . iustitiae eius m a n i festus maximo Caesare utimur teste adiciens fabulae suae M n a s e a m [testem e x c i d i s s e p u t a t Boysen]

CA 2, 5 2 2, 61

fertig

CA 2, 108

transcendo t o transgress, violate ü b e r t r e t e n , verletzen

[2, 112]

patria iura transcendere

CA 2, 73

transeo to w a l k t h r o u g h , e n t e r

testor

durchschreiten, betreten

t o testify, b e witness b e z e u g e n , Z e u g e sein m u l t i . . conscriptores s u p e r hoc quoque testantur

v o l l e n d e n ; t r a n s a c t u m esse = sein, d a s E n d e e r r e i c h t h a b e n

CA 2, 8 4

[ t h u r i b u l u m ] —> t u r i b u l u m

per templa transire mulieres t a n t u m m o d o m e n struatae transire prohibebantur

CA 2, 8 9 2, 103

transfero t o transfer

totus

übertragen CA 2, 6 4 . 7 5 . 107 a d m i n i s t r a o o ' t r i t i c i . . transl a t a est

trado CA 2, 5 9 = t o s u r r e n d e r , deliver; CA 2, 112 = t o deliver i n t o (someone's) h a n d s — t r a d i t u s (CA 2, 105) = c u s t o m ­ ary, usual CA 2 , 5 9 = ü b e r g e b e n , a u s l i e f e r n ; CA 2, 112 = in die H ä n d e l i e f e r n — t r a d i t u s (CA 2, 105) = h e r k ö m m l i c h , üblich tradere . . exercitum et principatum facientes t r a d i t a s hostias t r a d i t u r u m se eis A p o l linem

CA 2, 5 9 2, 105 2, 112

CA 2, 6 4

transgredior t o transgress, violate übertreten, verletzen Antiochum transgressum foedera J u d a e o r u m

CA 2, 8 4

tres CA 2, 113 tribus (priesterly) o r d e r , clan (priesterliche) S i p p e

tragoedia h o r r i b l e story, as is f o u n d in t r a g e d i e s S c h a u e r g e s c h i c h t e , wie sie in T r a g ö ­ dien v o r k o m m t huiusmodi ergo fabula. . o m n i tragoedia pleniss i m a est

CA 2, 9 7

transigo t o finish; t r a n s a c t u m esse = t o h a v e finished, to b e p a s t

licet e n i m sint tribus q u a t t u o r [viginti quattuor coni. Ottius] sacerdotum l i c e t . . h a r u m t r i b u u m singulae h a b e a n t h o m i n u m plus q u a m q u i n q u e milia

CA 2, 108

2, 108

triticum w h e a t , c o r n ; a d m i n i s t r a t i o tritici = a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of c o r n W e i z e n , G e t r e i d e ; a d m i n i s t r a t i o tri­ tici = G e t r e i d e v e r w a l t u n g

A CONCORDANCE s i . . famis t e m p o r e J u d a e i s triticum n o n est m e n s a a d m i n i s t r a t i o tritici

CA 2, 6 0 2, 6 4

usque CA 2, 6 0 ut

tunc

CA 2, 5 1 . 5 3 . 5 4 . 6 0 . 7 5 . 9 2 . 9 5 . 9 6 . 9 8 . 9 9 . 100. 105. 113

CA 2, 9 2 . 9 5 turibulum

513

[thuribulum]

utilis

censer

useful

Weihrauchpfanne altare mensa turibulum [thuribulum N a b e r ] c a n ­ delabrum

nützlich CA 2, 106

turpis disgraceful

porro . . causam neque deo neque hominibus urilem . . fabricari [porro fabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)]

CA 2, 75

utique

schändlich

CA 2, 6 6

d u m sit valde t u r p i s s i m u m liberis q u a l i b e t r a t i o n e mentiri sed t u r p e est

CA 2, 79 utor

2, 109

U ubi CA 2, 110 ubique e v e r y w h e r e , all o v e r t h e w o r l d ü b e r a l l , in aller W e l t cur omnes nos culpat ubiq u e positos . .?

CA 2, 6 8

t o u s e , h a v e — C A 2, 9 0 = to c o m m i t v e r w e n d e n , h a b e n — C A 2, 9 0 = b e ­ gehen maximo Caesare utimur teste c u n c t i s scilicet u t e n t i b u s malis m o r i b u s legibus . . s e m p e r u t i m u r isdem sacrilegium . . q u o circa g e n t e m n o s t r a m est usus

CA 2, 61 2, 70 2, 8 2 2, 9 0

uxor wife Gattin

ullus

omnes vero Judaeos . . c u m filiis et u x o r i b u s p a t r u m et u x o r u m filiorumque

CA 2, 107 ultimus

CA 2, 5 3 2, 74

last letzter u l t i m a e C l e o p a t r a e Alexa n d r i n o r u m reginae unde CA 2, 5 5 unus CA 2, 6 6

V CA 2, 5 6 valde CA 2, 7 9 . 8 7 . 9 8 valeo t o b e in a p o s i t i o n t o , b e a b l e to in d e r L a g e sein, k ö n n e n h a e c i m p l e r e n o n valuit

CA 2, 8 8

514

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

varius diverse mannigfach c u m varii casus n o s t r a m civitatem . . vexaverint

CA 2, 8 2

insensatos e n i m n o n verbis sed operibus decet arguere

2, 102

v e r b a i n c r e d ü l a protulisse

2, 109

Veritas vas vessel Gefäß n e c vas [ne vas quidem G e l e nius] aliquod p o r t a r i licet in t e m p l u m a p r a e c e d e n t i b u s claves t e m p l i et a d n u m e r u m o m n i a vasa percipiunt

CA 2, 106

2, 108

vero, verum (adverb) (Adverb)

vel CA 2, 5 5 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 5 7 . 8 1 . 9 2 . 9 2 . 100. 100

veluti

CA 2, 5 3 . 5 5 . 5 5 . 6 0 . 6 3 . 6 4 . 6 9 . 6 9 . 72. 74. 74. 7 7 . 8 3 . 8 9 . 9 0 . 9 1 . 9 2 . 1 0 1 . 104. 104. 105. 113

verus

CA 2, 5 6

t r u e , b e i n g in e x a c t a c c o r d a n c e w i t h reality

venio

wahr, mit der Wirklichkeit übereinstimmend

to come kommen alii s u c c e d e n t e s a d sacrificia v e n i u n t q u e n d a m e o r u m . . venisse ad Judaeos v e n t u r u m q u e i l i u m (sc. Apollinem) a d nostrum templum

t r u t h ; c u m veritate (CA 2, 68) = justifi­ ably, truthfully W a h r h e i t ; c u m v e r i t a t e (CA 2, 68) = berechtigt, begründet si c u m v e r i t a t e . . a c c u s a t CA 2, 6 8 Judaeos discutere veritatem 2, 111

CA 2, 108

historiae . . veram tiam . . proferre

genau

noti-

CA 2, 109

c u m varii c a s u s n o s t r a m civitatem . . vexaverint

CA 2, 8 2

2, 112

[vester]

2, 112

[CA 2, 66]

vexo t o afflict

verax

heimsuchen

corresponding to the truth, true der Wahrheit entsprechend, wahr­ heitsgemäß iusta et v e r a c i a . . c o n scribere

CA 2, 9 0

via w a y , s t r e t c h (of road) Weg, Wegstrecke

verbum

licet. . viam propositam [aut proposita ed. pr.] n o n a d i m p l e a n t (sc. asini)

word Wort ad componendum verba fallacia m i n u s esse i n m u n d u m p e r templa transire q u a m sacerdotibus scelesta v e r b a confingere

CA 2, 8 8 2, 8 9

CA 2, 87

[victus] d u m peragraret provinc i a m p r o p t e r vitae c a u ­ s a m [parandi victus causa Gelenius]

[CA 2, 93]

515

A CONCORDANCE video to s e e — v i d e r i = t o s e e m , a p p e a r , b e obviously (something) sehen—videri = scheinen, offenbar (etwas) sein cum genus utique nostrorum u n u m atque idem esse v i d e a t u r neque regum quisquam v i d e t u r ius civilitatis fuisse largitus q u i d e r g o m i r u m est, si etiam principibus . . hunc honorem praebere videantur? p r i m u m q u i d e m h a e c sibi inopinabilia bénéficia p r o d i d i s s e et d e t u l i s s e [bénéficia visa attulisse Gelenius] l a e t i t i a m omnes qui viderunt constructionem templi nostri

CA 2, 6 6

aliis . . h o n o r i b u s p o s t d e u m c o l e n d o s . . viros bonos s a p i e n t e s viros

CA 2, 7 6

2, 8 7

viscus viscera = b o w e l s , " v i s c e r a " viscera = E i n g e w e i d e , Fleisch

2, 72

g u s t a r e e x e i u s (sc. h o minis) visceribus a d g u s t a n d u m viscera ilia

CA 2, 9 5 2, 100

2, 7 4 vita life—CA 2, 9 3 = livelihood [2, 94]

2, 102

viginti

L e b e n — C A 2, 9 3 = L e b e n s u n t e r h a l t d u m peragraret provinc i a m p r o p t e r vitae c a u ­ s a m [parandi victus causa Gelenius] p a u c o s i a m dies d e vita [de vita Boysen: débita c o d d . : debitos G e l e n i u s ] s i b i m e t superesse

CA 2, 9 3

2, 9 6

[CA 2, 108] voco vincio

t o call, d e s i g n a t e nennen, bezeichnen

to fetter fesseln cum . . pugnare non praesumeret, o m n e s v e r o J u ­ daeos . . capiens nudos a t q u e vinctos e l e p h a n t i s subiecisset

p e r e g r i n o s v o c a n t eos

CA 2, 71

CA 2, 5 3 volatilis winged geflügelt mensam maritimis terren i s q u e et v o l a t i l i u m d a pibus plenam

vinco

CA 2, 91

t o b e victorious siegen bello v i n c e n t e s

volo CA 2, 8 2

to want, wish wollen

violentia volentes enim Antiocho praestare

violence

CA 2, 9 0

G e w a l t (samkeit) h o n o r i b u s . . qui ex necessitate et violentia c o n feruntur vir

CA 2, 7 3

voluntas intention, purpose (freier) W i l l e , A b s i c h t fuit e r g o v o l u n t a t e i n i q u u s

man Mann

vos CA 2, 6 5 . 6 6 . 6 7

CA 2, 9 8

516

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG

A u s d e m L a t e i n i s c h e n erschlossene griechische W ö r t e r

pioiç (Thackeray)] qualibet ratione mentiri

[avGpcorco«;] et

[quod i n s . G e l e n i u s ] o b s t i p u i s s e t [obstupuisset R C ] his h o m o [et obstipuisse his hominem c o n i . R e i n a c h : homo = ö avGpamoq ( T h a c k e r a y ) ]

[CA 2, 91]

q u o m o d o n o n intellexit operibus increpatus [h.e. TOÎÇ epyoic èfyh\Key\ié.voç (Niese)] d e i n c r e d i b i l i suo mendacio?

[CA 2, 82]

)

[ëÇœGev] [avroxeip] si p o s s e t i p s a m a n u s u a J u d a e o s [Judaeos s e c l . B o y s e n : se (i.e. £i 8 u v a x a i orornv a v T o x e i p <poveueiv vel simile) R e i nach] perimere

[CA 2, 60]

[CA 2, 85]

[epâco] maritos suos, qui etiam d i l e x e r u n t e a r n [qui-eam vel c o r r u p t u m , vel a b i g n a r o i n t e r p r è t e scriptum qui verba graeca

[yofcv] i t a q u e [ g r . yoüv? ( R e i nach)]

e x t r i n s e c u s [i.e. eÇcoGev = sine (Boysen)]

[CA 2, 86]

(e.g.

Kai

TOÙÇ

épœvxaç) n o n (Reinach)]

[CA 2, 57]

aurnv

intellexit

[Seivoq] a s p e c t u m t e r r i b i l e m [h.e. Seivnv öyiv (Niese)] c o n t e m p l a t u s est

[CA 2, 5 4 ]

[öeiaiöainov] t a m q u a m p i i s s i m o s [piissimos (i.e. 8eiai8a(|j.ova<;) con. Niese: piissimus c o d d . ] d e r i d e t (sc. nos)

[CA 2, 112]

[epïov] q u o m o d o n o n intellexit operibus increpatus [h.e. TOÎÇ ëpyoïç éÇeÀ,r|>,£Y|iévoç (Niese)] d e i n c r e d i b i l i suo mendacio?

[CA 2, 82]

[èpô] q u a e in f u t u r o [futuris ed. p r . ] s u n t [Niese: essent c o d d . ] d i c e n d a [quaedicenda = xo \iéX\ov pnOriGeaGai (Boysen)]

[CA 2, 9 9 ]

[CA 2, 90]

[öävotjiai] [Geoç] si p o s s e t i p s a m a n u s u a J u d a e o s [Judaeos s e c l . B o y s e n : se ( i . e . ei ö v v a x a i oa)rnv oruToxeip (povevew vel simile) R e i nach] perimere

[CA 2, 60] et Pius [ N i e s e : dius c o d d . : Dims (i.e. 'AVTIOXOÇ Geoç) Thackeray] ac Pompeius [liéAAov] q u a e in f u t u r o [futuris ed. p r . ] s u n t [ N i e s e : essent c o d d . ] d i c e n d a [quaedicenda = TO \iiXXov pnGr|aeaGou (Boysen)]

[ei] [ C 4 2, 6 0 ] [2, 8 7 ] [eXeuGepio;]

[oSv] d u m sit v a l d e t u r p i s s i m u m liberis [i.e. e/UvGe-

[CA 2, 77]

[CA 2, 79] [CA 2, 99]

[CA 2, 99]

A

aspectum terribilem [h.e. SEIVTJV ö\|/iv (Niese)] c o n t e m p l a t u s est

517

CONCORDANCE

[CA 2, 5 4 ]

deo neque hominibus utilem . . fabricari [porrofabricari c o r r u p t a (Niese)] [cpovexxö]

[naq] [CA 2, 77] [wp&yiia]

porro . . causam [h.e. Ttpayna (Niese)] n e q u e

[CA 2, 75]

si p o s s e t i p s a m a n u J u d a e o s [Judaeos B o y s e n : se (i.e. e i a i a i crurnv auxoxeip eveiv v e l s i m i l e ) nach] perimere

sua secl. 8\>v(povRei­

[CA 2, 60]